[Traum]

From middle-class to minimum wage. With no way back | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/atkinsonseries/2013/12/13/the_incredible_disappearing_middle_class.html)

Came across the article just this morning, and somehow, this time it really struck a cord and resonated. The concept of the shrinking middle class and their downfall is certainly not new, but I found this particular graphic to be especially sobering:

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/uploads/2013/12/12/1386887840047.jpg

The other 2 graphics are revealing as well, although they didn't carry as much impact for me as the one above:

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/uploads/2013/12/12/1386888007413.jpg

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/uploads/2013/12/12/1386888084928.jpg

While going through school, I've always considered my family to be solidly rooted in the middle class. But the longer I've been out working, the more I feel like I'm drifting straight into the working class end, with the poor class easily within sight should anything unexpected happens...

[CharlesInCharge]

I would like to see a chart of the quality of food people used to eat, prior to 50 years ago, and today. Im betting the poor, middle class, and even upper class consume sub-par food compared to the past.

[multicartual]

At least our modern artists are humble about their wealth, and I'm so glad they rap/sing about the problems and strife affecting our way of life rather than just make music talking about how great they are

[Bouncing Bettys]

How long until we see a modern French Revolution?

With the internet, the people have such a powerful weapon for change. It's no wonder governments and companies have been quietly attempting to monitor and restrict its use worldwide while claiming to protect children, fight terrorism, etc.

[iEatClams]

People always dis unions. And yes there are many negatives of having a union. But unions were the first to fight for work conditions and standards and are the reason we have:

1. Safety rights
2. for the majority, a regular 5 day workweek (weekends off)
3. paid holidays
4. mandatory lunches and breaks
5. other benefits.

[iEatClams]

I think worker rights are going away and with globalization, it's just going to be a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Corporations will be want to cut costs as much as they can.

All the jobs are going to China and India, and they are not coming back.

China is growing rapidly, manipulating their currency and doing things that benefit their country at the expense of western countries.

[finbar]

Do your part, get an education for yourself and/or your kids.
It's a good way to compete in the global economy.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UPIk5Fk0UBk/UceND54TOUI/AAAAAAAAAaE/CzgK2I7ZJ68/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-23+at+9.34.05+PM.png

[MasonJar]

How long until we see a modern French Revolution?



They tried. It was called "Occupy".

Accomplished nothing. Unfortunately, I don't think we will see anything like it again as no matter how long it lasted, how many bought "we are the 99%" t-shirt, and no matter how many news storied there were, the "protest" ended without so much as an acknowledgement from anyone of any relevance.

[MasonJar]

Do your part, get an education for yourself and/or your kids.
It's a good way to compete in the global economy.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UPIk5Fk0UBk/UceND54TOUI/AAAAAAAAAaE/CzgK2I7ZJ68/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-23+at+9.34.05+PM.png

Can't compete in a "global economy" when you are going poor from student loan payments.

Don't over estimate the importance of a post-secondary education.

[jasonturbo]

I would say that the main driving force behind the trends observed in the first post would probably be the cost of housing. (Re: the decline of the middle class table)

2002-2012 Wages have barely moved, cost of housing has more than doubled in most parts of Canada. ROT used to be that housing costs "should" be take up about 33% of your income, safe to say that number is far from realistic for most households.

To add insult to injury, NA trade deficit is also a contributor.

Get an education, work your ass off, find a niche, or prepare to be part of the "new" middle class.

I don't buy the "going broke from student loan payments", you should be able to work part time and pay for schooling as you progress, just stay the &##% away from the bar/party scene and accept you won't have any nice things for a while. If you came out of school with massive debt it's probably because you screwed around when you should have been working/studying.

/end Asian father rant.

[SkunkWorks]

I don't buy the "going broke from student loan payments", you should be able to work part time and pay for schooling as you progress, just stay the &##% away from the bar/party scene and accept you won't have any nice things for a while. If you came out of school with massive debt it's probably because you screwed around when you should have been working/studying.

/end Asian father rant.

This is true. I work a few weekends during the school year and then FT during the summers and am able to cover all or most of my Uni tuition usually. Mind you, this doesn't include living costs but they shouldn't be astronomical if you live within your means...

[Noir]

I don't buy the "going broke from student loan payments", you should be able to work part time and pay for schooling as you progress, just stay the &##% away from the bar/party scene and accept you won't have any nice things for a while. If you came out of school with massive debt it's probably because you screwed around when you should have been working/studying.

/end Asian father rant.

Wise words with tons of merit.

However, you're only young once. And when the time has passed, you don't get that shit back.

Education and money on the other hand... they will be there when you turn 25, 30, our even 40. You just may be half a decade behind from your peers but hey.... at least you got to fuck around for a while (figuratively and literally) :)
Posted via RS Mobile

[MasonJar]

Not everyone is afforded the luxury to live at home while going to school.

I had 3 jobs while doing to full-time university and still needed to take a student loan to pay for tuition.

[PiuYi]

the data from those graphs sound like they're done by polling... which means it is just the OPINION of those being surveyed, not always reflective of the truth

sure, less people feel they are in the middle class and more feel they are poor... but that doesn't mean that is reality. It could be just that people have a higher standard for which they envision themselves now. In 2009 maybe keeping the phone you had for 2 years was okay, nowadays a 1year old phone is outdated making you feel poor

I think more empirical data backing up these claims would help the legitimacy of those graphs

[RFlush]

Not everyone is afforded the luxury to live at home while going to school.

I had 3 jobs while doing to full-time university and still needed to take a student loan to pay for tuition.
Then surely you must be eligible for bursaries and grants. How much do you get outer semester? Do you qualify for any scholarships?
Posted via RS Mobile

[MasonJar]

Then surely you must be eligible for bursaries and grants. How much do you get outer semester? Do you qualify for any scholarships?
Posted via RS Mobile

How so?

I received one bursary my last semester for $1100. Was one of those random Canadian Millennium ones that everyone who applies for student loans is qualified for.

I was just your average university student.

White.
Middle class.
Early 20s.

I didn't play an instrument, I didn't belong to any type of society/church/volunteer thing that provides scholarships. I am not disabled. I am not a minority. Was not on social assistance. My grades were above average, but nothing spectacular, etc.

My jobs were Roger's Video, Safeway, and a lab assistant in the department of my major (work study)....remember, this was when minimum wage was $7/hr. so at about 20 hours a week (some times more, some times less), that is only $140 before tax.

$140 would not even cover ONE university credit.

[jasonturbo]

the data from those graphs sound like they're done by polling... which means it is just the OPINION of those being surveyed, not always reflective of the truth

sure, less people feel they are in the middle class and more feel they are poor... but that doesn't mean that is reality. It could be just that people have a higher standard for which they envision themselves now. In 2009 maybe keeping the phone you had for 2 years was okay, nowadays a 1year old phone is outdated making you feel poor

I think more empirical data backing up these claims would help the legitimacy of those graphs

You need only compare median household income with home prices over the last ten years to see the validity of the first graph.

How so?

I received one bursary my last semester for $1100. Was one of those random Canadian Millennium ones that everyone who applies for student loans is qualified for.

I was just your average university student.

White.
Middle class.
Early 20s.

I didn't play an instrument, I didn't belong to any type of society/church/volunteer thing that provides scholarships. I am not disabled. I am not a minority. Was not on social assistance. My grades were above average, but nothing spectacular, etc.

My jobs were Roger's Video, Safeway, and a lab assistant in the department of my major (work study)....remember, this was when minimum wage was $7/hr. so at about 20 hours a week (some times more, some times less), that is only $140 before tax.

$140 would not even cover ONE university credit.

What did you take? Were you not able to obtain decent full time employment over the summer? it's obviously not easy to work a lot of part time hours during the regular school year but you have about 4 months off to work/save every year.

[MasonJar]

What did you take? Were you not able to obtain decent full time employment over the summer? it's obviously not easy to work a lot of part time hours during the regular school year but you have about 4 months off to work/save every year.

I did summer semester to finish university ASAP and one summer I did field school/practicum/volunteer for experience.

I used my degree successfully upon graduation ($35/hr) for 8 years before I decided to change careers so it is not like I walked out of uni with a bullshit degree.

As for full time employment when I could get it, at minimum wage $7/hr that equates to $1120/month before tax. Try paying rent and living expenses with that. Also, I am (and was) not a drinker or partier, I didn't go clubbing, or have expensive hobbies.

I am not saying, "woe is me" in any sense of the word....it was what it was, but I do get frustrated when people just assume that going to school without a student loan is an option for everyone. Working more jobs or working more hours truly does not cut it. My average (iirc) was about $2500-3000/semester and about $500-1000 in books and supplies and this was BEFORE everyone had a laptop, lol. So, I could work full time for 4 months to pay for tuition....but, I'd be living in a van down by the river ;)

[tiger_handheld]

how do you define poor , working, middle and upper?

is there an income threshold? is the number of vacations that a family takes in a year?
if you make a 100k but have 90k in living expenses vs if you have 20k and 10k in living expenses - who's poor / upper?


the terms seem super subjective in my mind.

[rsx]

Cost of living plus lack of industrial/tech/ innovation can't sustain the old middle class; like the ones who climbed up from being a blue collar to middle management. Either the political system needs to become more socialist to create parity or the government needs to become very business friendly.

[iEatClams]

Cost of living plus lack of industrial/tech/ innovation can't sustain the old middle class; like the ones who climbed up from being a blue collar to middle management. Either the political system needs to become more socialist to create parity or the government needs to become very business friendly.

The way North American Society is becoming, we would rather live in a country where:

there's a minimum social safety net, there's less subsidizing for others, it's pay as you use and a very small % of individuals will be very wealthy and hold the majority of the wealth. While the many will be making decent wages, but many will also be living with poverty level incomes. In this model, the rich are getting richer and the poor and "middle class" are shrinking. It's a good model if you are rich or become rich and can achieve the american dream. ie. less socialist


another alternative is what countries like the Scandinavians have which is a higher social safety net, taxes are much higher and there's more subsidizing for others. The middle class here is better off, there's less poor people, but if you are rich, it's harder to be filthy rich because more of you earnings are taxed as there's a higher tax rate and less legal loopholes to avoid taxes. ie. more socialist.

[jasonturbo]

This isn't rocket science, 30 years ago if you had a job at Sears in the shoe department it was considered a "career", paid a decent wage (Relative to COGS), had full benefits, vacation, and probably even some kind of pension.

Now jobs that come with decent wage, benefits, vacation, and pension are HARD to find. Even coming out of school as an M.eng you will likely end up working somewhere that the best perks are half-ass benefits/vacation, and a piss ass little RRSP matching program that will max out at like 5k... oh and your salary, expect 50-60k per year until your resume has some strength.

I work for one of Canada's best employers, at our Calgary office Sr. Engineers/Accountants/Lawyers make about 130k MAX, bonus is capped around 15% of annual, great health and dental programs, and full pension after 30 years of service, @ 10k/year. This is pretty much THE BEST salary employee pay/benefit package I have ever seen, most pale in comparison. (It is a publicly traded company, private companies seem to offer less perks IMO)

[RRxtar]

Quality of life worse than 25 years ago

Brb: brand new iphone, multiple flat screen tvs, pc, laptop, internet, expensive clothes, $7 daily coffees.

people didnt have ANY OF THAT 25 years ago. the money they made went to basic household needs and their family. only the well off people had toys. now a days everyone feels it is their entitlement to have all the latest toys. there is no lifestyle difference between well off people and the middle class, except the middle class pay for it with borrowed money they cant pay back.

[CharlesInCharge]

I havent had time to read the whole thread, but have to add this quote from a musician.

It's really difficult for a person to create their own life and their own freedom. It's going to become more and more difficult, and it's going to create more and more disillusioned people who become dishonest and angry and are willing to fuck the next guy to get what they want. There's so much stepping on the backs of other people in our profession. We've been so lucky that we've never had to do that. Part of it was because of our own tenacity, and part of it was because we were lucky.
songmeanings.com/songs/view/3953/

[bing]

how do you define poor , working, middle and upper?

is there an income threshold? is the number of vacations that a family takes in a year?
if you make a 100k but have 90k in living expenses vs if you have 20k and 10k in living expenses - who's poor / upper?

the terms seem super subjective in my mind.

I would sort people using a socioeconomic scale that categorizes people as being either poor, working class, lower middle class, middle middle class, upper middle class, upper lower class and upper upper class. An aggregated 'middle class' is just too large and there's too much diversity within it (i.e. the resources and skills possessed by a middle lower vs. upper middle is too qualitatively and quantitatively distinct). To make a determination, I would consider income (and the sources it comes from), educational level (including prestige of institution), net worth, occupation, family history, personal values, etc. In your example and ignoring everything else, I would consider the person making 100k as being higher on the socioeconomic scale than someone who only made 20k.

For example:
poor - those that survive off disability and welfare payments and those who do work but can barely afford the basic necessities
lower middle class - blue collar, clerical
middle middle class - white collar
upper middle class - professional occupations such as lawyer, doctor, pharmacist, or professor
upper class - capitalist class (owner's of the means of production) including high level CEOs and successful sports/movie stars. However, in the past, you would have to be part of the aristocracy to be considered upper class in certain societies.

[multicartual]

if you make a 100k but have 90k in living expenses

That dude will be having a SHITLOAD of fun!!!


vs if you have 20k and 10k in living expenses - who's poor / upper?


20k and 10k living expenses = a life of shit

[Noir]

Quality of life worse than 25 years ago

Brb: brand new iphone, multiple flat screen tvs, pc, laptop, internet, expensive clothes, $7 daily coffees.

people didnt have ANY OF THAT 25 years ago. the money they made went to basic household needs and their family. only the well off people had toys. now a days everyone feels it is their entitlement to have all the latest toys. there is no lifestyle difference between well off people and the middle class, except the middle class pay for it with borrowed money they cant pay back.

I know what you're saying, but maybe half a decade ago you're right. Nowadays... all those luxury items aren't really luxury anymore at today's prices.

Flat screen TV's are now $500 give or take. You can get 40 inchers Toshiba, or Sharp at more or less that price. Possibly even bigger if you go to cheaper brands like Dynamex, etc. I remember, tube TV's were more or less the same price back then when they were standard.

Laptop's arent in $2000 - $3000 range anymore. Economy laptops are now starting at $300. Decent ones at $500 - $800 and high powered ones at $1000 - $1500.

Internet is becoming a necessity nowadays and are quickly replacing cable/land line phones. Since one is replacing the other, I wouldn't personally consider it as additional expense.

Phones - as long as you're not always buying phones on release date, phone costs can be subsidized over a 2 or 3 year plan, making them virtually free, if not just probably $50 or so.




So yeah, I just wanted to counter the argument that just because a person may have a Flat Screen TV, internet, a laptop and a smart phone doesn't make them ballers.


(I won't argue about the $7 coffees though, but that can go under vices. Like how some people can justify X amounts of $ per month on cigarrettes, some on weed, some on alcohol, or simply just another car accessory)

[multicartual]

there is no lifestyle difference between well off people and the middle class, except the middle class pay for it with borrowed money they cant pay back.



#YOLO

[radioman]

Where did $7 coffee come from?

Grande Latte from bux is like 4.50?

[jasonturbo]

Quality of life worse than 25 years ago

Brb: brand new iphone, multiple flat screen tvs, pc, laptop, internet, expensive clothes, $7 daily coffees.

people didnt have ANY OF THAT 25 years ago. the money they made went to basic household needs and their family. only the well off people had toys. now a days everyone feels it is their entitlement to have all the latest toys. there is no lifestyle difference between well off people and the middle class, except the middle class pay for it with borrowed money they cant pay back.

You are so wrong if you think people didn't live "indulgent" lifestyles 25 years ago... and by people I do mean the vast majority of people.

Classic 70's Fads, Products and Toys (http://www.retro-cafe.com/70s/70sfads.htm)

Yeah that shit seems lame to us now, back then a "Donut phone" was iphone!

Do some reading, consumerism popped in the 1950's

The Rise of Consumerism

One of the factors that fueled the prosperity of the Fifties was the increase in consumer spending. Americans enjoyed a standard of living that was inconceivable to the rest of the world. For example, Vice President Nixon told Nikita Khrushchev in the mid-1950s that there were 60 million cars in the United States, but the Soviet leader simply refused to believe him. When Khrushchev came to visit America, Eisenhower arranged for him to fly in a helicopter over busy roads and parking lots to witness the remarkable signs of abundance for himself.

The time was ripe for Americans to change their spending patterns. The adults of the Fifties had grown up in conditions of economic deprivation, first due to the general poverty of the Great Depression and then due to the rationing of consumer goods World War II. During the Thirties, with unemployment sky-high and the economy in shambles, most people could simply not afford much beyond the basics. During the war, much of the nation's productive capacity shifted to armaments. Everything from sugar to gasoline to tires to nylon stockings were rationed. When consumer goods became available again, people wanted to spend. By the 1950s, though they made up just 6% of the world's population, Americans consumed a third of all the world's goods and services.

The difference between a production society, which focused on meeting basic needs, and a consumption society, which emphasized customers' wants, was like the difference between a 1908 Ford Model T and a 1959 Ford Galaxie. The Model T, available only in black, was a utilitarian piece of machinery intended for basic transportation. The Galaxie, decked out in shiny chrome, was a way to show off and to enjoy a sense of luxury, not just to move from place to place. Within a year or two, it would be obsolete as fashion changed. Blessed with abundant resources, America could afford to turn part of its productive capacity to creating glitz and fashionable waste. An older generation was careful to save and reuse; Americans in the Fifties began to use and throw away. They became "consumers."

Consumerism was driven by advertising. Spending on product promotion boomed, from $6 billion annually in 1950 to more than $13 billion by 1963. "The reason we have such a high standard of living," Robert Sarnoff, president of the National Broadcasting Company, said in 1956, "is because advertising has created an American frame of mind that makes people want more things, better things, and newer things."29

There's no question that advertising drove the purchase of new products, which in turn kept the nation's economic wheels turning. And, as Sarnoff pointed out, Americans did achieve a high standard of living. But some critics questioned whether a reliance on consumers to drive a huge portion of the economy was wise in the long term. Half a century later, our current economic crisis, fueled in part by a collapse of consumer spending, has raised the question again.

A Nation in Debt

Though Eisenhower tried mightily to balance the federal budget, consumers did not follow suit when it came to their own family budgets. Americans had traditionally been thrifty by nature, but in the Fifties they were willing to "buy now, pay later," as automobile advertisements urged. The Federal Housing Administration and the Veteran's Administration both offered low-interest loans to allow families to buy new homes.

The very first credit card——the Diner's Club card—— appeared in 1950. That particular card was limited to paying for meals at a limited number of restaurants, but it was quickly followed by other cards, touching off a dramatic growth in borrowing. Private debt more than doubled from $104.8 billion to $263.3 billion during the Fifties. People borrowed to buy houses, cars, appliances, and even swimming pools.

Buying on credit stimulated the economy, helping many to enjoy the good things in life even as it kept industry busy and unemployment low. Too much debt, as we've seen lately, can be a dangerous thing, but during the Fifties, borrowing mostly helped fuel the robust economy.

Economy in The 1950s (http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/economy.html)

I can't beleive people actually thanked your post, so naive. North Americans have been pissing money away for a long time, the only difference is now we exist in a globally competitive marketplace, and we are not exacty competitive. Nothing has changed with the mindsets of Americans, it's the external variables that are crushing our historically lush and easy way of life.

... + people are stupid and lazy.

[MasonJar]

You are so wrong if you think people didn't live "indulgent" lifestyles 25 years ago... and by people I do mean the vast majority of people.


Yeah that shit seems lame to us now, back then a "Donut phone" was iphone!

Do some reading, consumerism popped in the 1950's


Yeah, I'd agree with you here.

Most of you are far to young to remember the VCR fad of the late 70s early 80s. They were hundreds of dollars and seriously THE BEST THING EVER!!!! (we can record tv and watch it later?! OMGWTFBBQ!!).

Same with:
-Original nintendo
-Sega (SE-GA)
-Gameboy
-Car phones (I remember how cool my dad was with his car phone that came in this brief case thing, lol)
-Original mobile phones (ala Zack Morris)
-Commodore 64 with a zillion games (hello Summer Games?!)
-Walk-mans and later, disc mans
-Ghetto blasters
-Having TVs in every room

I can go on and on. Yeah this shit is worth pennies now, but back then this shit was EXPENSIVE and EVERYONE wanted them....which is the same with iPhones, iPads, flatscreens, etc....It is ALL the same shit, it just looks different.

Its all relative and to assume this has been the same for every generation is naive.

[iEatClams]

You are so wrong if you think people didn't live "indulgent" lifestyles 25 years ago... and by people I do mean the vast majority of people.

Classic 70's Fads, Products and Toys (http://www.retro-cafe.com/70s/70sfads.htm)

Yeah that shit seems lame to us now, back then a "Donut phone" was iphone!

Do some reading, consumerism popped in the 1950's

The Rise of Consumerism

One of the factors that fueled the prosperity of the Fifties was the increase in consumer spending. Americans enjoyed a standard of living that was inconceivable to the rest of the world. For example, Vice President Nixon told Nikita Khrushchev in the mid-1950s that there were 60 million cars in the United States, but the Soviet leader simply refused to believe him. When Khrushchev came to visit America, Eisenhower arranged for him to fly in a helicopter over busy roads and parking lots to witness the remarkable signs of abundance for himself.

The time was ripe for Americans to change their spending patterns. The adults of the Fifties had grown up in conditions of economic deprivation, first due to the general poverty of the Great Depression and then due to the rationing of consumer goods World War II. During the Thirties, with unemployment sky-high and the economy in shambles, most people could simply not afford much beyond the basics. During the war, much of the nation's productive capacity shifted to armaments. Everything from sugar to gasoline to tires to nylon stockings were rationed. When consumer goods became available again, people wanted to spend. By the 1950s, though they made up just 6% of the world's population, Americans consumed a third of all the world's goods and services.

The difference between a production society, which focused on meeting basic needs, and a consumption society, which emphasized customers' wants, was like the difference between a 1908 Ford Model T and a 1959 Ford Galaxie. The Model T, available only in black, was a utilitarian piece of machinery intended for basic transportation. The Galaxie, decked out in shiny chrome, was a way to show off and to enjoy a sense of luxury, not just to move from place to place. Within a year or two, it would be obsolete as fashion changed. Blessed with abundant resources, America could afford to turn part of its productive capacity to creating glitz and fashionable waste. An older generation was careful to save and reuse; Americans in the Fifties began to use and throw away. They became "consumers."

Consumerism was driven by advertising. Spending on product promotion boomed, from $6 billion annually in 1950 to more than $13 billion by 1963. "The reason we have such a high standard of living," Robert Sarnoff, president of the National Broadcasting Company, said in 1956, "is because advertising has created an American frame of mind that makes people want more things, better things, and newer things."29

There's no question that advertising drove the purchase of new products, which in turn kept the nation's economic wheels turning. And, as Sarnoff pointed out, Americans did achieve a high standard of living. But some critics questioned whether a reliance on consumers to drive a huge portion of the economy was wise in the long term. Half a century later, our current economic crisis, fueled in part by a collapse of consumer spending, has raised the question again.

A Nation in Debt

Though Eisenhower tried mightily to balance the federal budget, consumers did not follow suit when it came to their own family budgets. Americans had traditionally been thrifty by nature, but in the Fifties they were willing to "buy now, pay later," as automobile advertisements urged. The Federal Housing Administration and the Veteran's Administration both offered low-interest loans to allow families to buy new homes.

The very first credit card——the Diner's Club card—— appeared in 1950. That particular card was limited to paying for meals at a limited number of restaurants, but it was quickly followed by other cards, touching off a dramatic growth in borrowing. Private debt more than doubled from $104.8 billion to $263.3 billion during the Fifties. People borrowed to buy houses, cars, appliances, and even swimming pools.

Buying on credit stimulated the economy, helping many to enjoy the good things in life even as it kept industry busy and unemployment low. Too much debt, as we've seen lately, can be a dangerous thing, but during the Fifties, borrowing mostly helped fuel the robust economy.

Economy in The 1950s (http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/economy.html)

I can't beleive people actually thanked your post, so naive. North Americans have been pissing money away for a long time, the only difference is now we exist in a globally competitive marketplace, and we are not exacty competitive. Nothing has changed with the mindsets of Americans, it's the external variables that are crushing our historically lush and easy way of life.

... + people are stupid and lazy.

I really think we should be living in a society where if you are hard working, have some sort of education, you should get a job that pays at least the ~35K, which is the median income.

But today, you can have an engineering or technical degree and are considered lucky if you land a job at all. Go talk to a lot of new grads these days and I sympathize with them, it's a much tougher job market out there than when I graduated.

[Traum]

^^ Much like a lot of social issues and phenomenons, I'd say the new grad no job condition is at least partly caused by the Baby Boomers yet again. With a lot of them remaining in the work force for whatever reason past the nominal retirement age (be it they simply enjoy work, is forced to keep working, and anything in between), Boomers continue take up the positions that they have held before. That means there is no room for the Gen X crowd to move up into (management etc.), and so there is no room for the Gen Y to start, and no room for the Millennials go.

[GLOW]

Where did $7 coffee come from?

Grande Latte from bux is like 4.50?

damn...radio knows...

http://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/9/9e/697.gif

[MasonJar]

^^ Much like a lot of social issues and phenomenons, I'd say the new grad no job condition is at least partly caused by the Baby Boomers yet again. With a lot of them remaining in the work force for whatever reason past the nominal retirement age (be it they simply enjoy work, is forced to keep working, and anything in between), Boomers continue take up the positions that they have held before. That means there is no room for the Gen X crowd to move up into (management etc.), and so there is no room for the Gen Y to start, and no room for the Millennials go.

Moral of the story?

Stop being a sheep. Make your own way. Start your own company. Do something different. Make a name for yourself. Make all the moneys. Name in lights. Laugh at the minions. Go out with a BANG. #YOLO.

[4444]

Part of the problem is people expect too much.

As said, people expect a new phone, they expect a great education to be available to them, they expect to be able to buy a nice house on a nice street, all whilst just doing moderate levels of education and working 9-5.

With globalization, and the growth of a Chinese and Indian middle class, that can't happen anymore, the supply of easy lives remains the same, but the demand for them has grown exponentially.

Being middle class is something you have to work hard for.

Life isn't easy, it's not fair, some ppl fall into easy lives, they're just lucky, some ppl work hard and get shit on, they're unfortunate, but for the majority, if you work hard, work smart, take all the education you can (preferably by having someone pay for it, ie your company), and always try your best - that's the only way to ensure you will be ''middle class". Now, when you think of the people you know, how many people do this? How many hustle and grind to get the best grades, do the best work, meet the people they need to know? I'd say not enough.

The 70's and 80's' in North America was a totally different world than it is today. We have to adapt and stop crying that 'life's not fair, the middle class is shrinking'.

I will also say, the rich have gotten a lot richer, they have skewed the rules in their favour in most places, sadly I don't see that changing, as the occupy movement proved... We just can't have a material effect on it

[jasonturbo]

Yep, she's a different animal now, those that understand this will do well, those that don't get it will be in for a shitty retirement.

Think of everytime in your life you have worked with someone and thought to yourself "Man, I hate that idiot"... you shouldn't feel that way, if it wasn't for "idiots" like them North America would be uber competitive, and it would be so much harder for you to get what you so rightfully deserve, all sorts of useless knick-knack shit and hipster clothes.

Me, I get it, I see how things are screwed up and I use that to my advantage. I don't expect life to just "work itself out", I make it work.

I'm a "dooer", not a "don'ter".

[4444]

This thread brings that saying to mind, save first and spend what is leftover - not spend first and save what's leftover.

I find the idiots out there have all the toys and no investments or plan for a rainy day (the paycheque to paycheque crowd), vs. the smarter crowd that realize shiny things are just that, things.

I have an iPhone4s. Have no desire for anything newer than that (mind you, I'm a simpleton and use my phone for calls, emails, a bit of Internets)

[multicartual]

I find the idiots out there have all the toys and no investments or plan for a rainy day (the paycheque to paycheque crowd), vs. the smarter crowd that realize shiny things are just that, things.


Different strokes man, the cheque to cheque people might be living a lot of life in a short amount of time due to the places and people that lifestyle gives them access to

Money is the fuel you burn for experience, pretty much

Sometimes the entrepreneurial life feels like Indiana Jones at the beginning of Raiders, outrunning that big ass rock after reaching for the gold!

[westopher]

Some people determine their quality of life through experiences, some through things, and some through the # in their bank accounts. Whatever makes you happy, although personally, I'd rather have a nice car, and blow money on snowboard trips than die with a full bank account. Its obviously about finding a balance though. Its kind of unrelated to the thread, but no one is right about how people should spend their money. Although we can agree on people spending money that they don't have is contributing to the fall of the middle class. Spending money you don't have costs you a LOT of money in the long run, and that money goes to the rich people/corporations that you borrow mass amounts of money from.

[Z3guy]

living for now and going for life experiences makes allot of sense.....until you have kids and realize setting my kids up for their life success (money for school, downpayment for condo, and maybe some money to start his own business) is more important than trips, cars and nice clothes. Different priorities for different people.

[RRxtar]

To be fair to my point of view, Im 30, not 20, so I came from the 'before' times and I grew up in a home (basement suite) with a single mother who had no fancy things, worked hard a standard insurance job on a very modest income and was babysat by my grandma.

Fast forward to me, no post secondary education, yet I work my fucking nuts off to get to a very comfortable income level by starting my own business less than 5 years ago.

I know very well that a generic 9-5 doesn't get you all the fancy things you see on TV (and now the internet), so I work my ass off to create opportunities for myself. Instead of bitching about how life is too tough to get what I want.

[RRxtar]

This thread brings that saying to mind, save first and spend what is leftover - not spend first and save what's leftover.

I find the idiots out there have all the toys and no investments or plan for a rainy day (the paycheque to paycheque crowd), vs. the smarter crowd that realize shiny things are just that, things.

I have an iPhone4s. Have no desire for anything newer than that (mind you, I'm a simpleton and use my phone for calls, emails, a bit of Internets)
or take it one step farther.

Instead of spending $1000 on the $1000 shiny thing you want, ask yourself how you can make that $1000 earn you another $1000 and buy the shiny thing with that money instead. Then you essentially got your want (shiny thing) for free, and kept your need (initial investment)

[Traum]

Instead of spending $1000 on the $1000 shiny thing you want, ask yourself how you can make that $1000 earn you another $1000 and buy the shiny thing with that money instead. Then you essentially got your want (shiny thing) for free, and kept your need (initial investment)
But, but, but... God forbid! That would require doing actual work! :badpokerface:

[coolname]

How so?

I received one bursary my last semester for $1100. Was one of those random Canadian Millennium ones that everyone who applies for student loans is qualified for.

I was just your average university student.

White.
Middle class.
Early 20s.

I didn't play an instrument, I didn't belong to any type of society/church/volunteer thing that provides scholarships. I am not disabled. I am not a minority. Was not on social assistance. My grades were above average, but nothing spectacular, etc.

My jobs were Roger's Video, Safeway, and a lab assistant in the department of my major (work study)....remember, this was when minimum wage was $7/hr. so at about 20 hours a week (some times more, some times less), that is only $140 before tax.

$140 would not even cover ONE university credit.

what is the point of having three jobs if you only work around one shift a week at each of them?

[will068]

what is the point of having three jobs if you only work around one shift a week at each of them?

Customizing your schedule and having that consistent cash flow. I remember back in university, I had 3-4 jobs. But only worked ~8 to 16 hours a week. The idea is to keep whatever little cash flow I had flowing on a consistent basis that conforms to my free time outside of school. If you had lectures on MWF and can only work Saturday and Tuesdays, it would be hard to a get a part time job that would give you consistent hours on those days all the time. I may get consistent Saturday work back then, but Tuesdays, not much. Also, you can't pigeonhole yourself to one job. If you can sneak in another job that pays more once in a blue moon, why not ?

[SideOfCarrots]

what is the point of having three jobs if you only work around one shift a week at each of them?

Have you never had a shitty part time job that was always "cutting hours"?

Jobs in retail, restaurants, etc always have fluctuating hours.

I remember working at a grocery store and going from working 32 hours one week to 4 hours the next. Sucks.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Nowadays we spend on things we don't need, with money we don't have, to show off to people we don't even care.......

back in the 80s and 90s is all about family. When I was a kid all I remember was my family had a 27inch TV that's it. No Ipads, no cell phones, no xbox one, no computer our clothes were hand me downs from aunts and uncles.....

If I want to play with friends we go play basketball, soccer ride our bike play tag...... basically stuff that cost next to nothing. Now everyone had an ipad, cell phones, ps4, xbox one, brand name clothing. which cost a ton of money. Is just that we have change so much on the definition of "Fun and lifestyle"

[godwin]

Most middle class jobs that were created in the past were union jobs. Now unions in BC are shrinking, since we never had a manufacturing base to start with; and unions aren't very good at getting new vocations to be unionized.. Why are we surprised that the number of #middle class is shrinking?

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ another reason I see is that middle class hardly gets any help/tax breaks from the gov.
Low income family gets more benfits, more help form the gov. High income knows how to cook their books to evade tax or use grey areas to avoid paying more tax...... while middle class doesn't get much breaks from the gov or have the knowledge or is able to use the grey area of the law to avoid tax therefore they are the ones always getting screw no matter what.

[Yodamaster]

Socialism.


I would live happily in a system where there is no wealth gap, where items are distributed in accordance to need, and luxury could be obtained for all by means of progress as a whole.

[ScizzMoney]

You are so wrong if you think people didn't live "indulgent" lifestyles 25 years ago... and by people I do mean the vast majority of people...Yeah that shit seems lame to us now, back then a "Donut phone" was iphone! ...Do some reading, consumerism popped in the 1950's
I can't beleive people actually thanked your post, so naive. North Americans have been pissing money away for a long time... + people are stupid and lazy.

Were people living cheque to cheque and upgrading their 'donut phone' every year? There are differences from 25 years ago and today. Every household had a phone, I will agree. Now every household has a phone plus personal cell phones for each member of the house.

North America has always been known for its excess, yes. It has almost always been a 'keeping up with the Jones' type of place. I thanked him for his line '..the middle class pay for it with borrowed money they cant pay back..'.

[noclue]

Socialism.


I would live happily in a system where there is no wealth gap, where items are distributed in accordance to need, and luxury could be obtained for all by means of progress as a whole.

Aside from quality, the main point of luxury is that others cant get it.

[Noir]

I fail to see the connection between the shrinking middle class and frivolous expenses like smart phones or a flat screen TV's and the like

First of all. $500 smart phones, (if people even still pay for it and not have it subsidized by 2 or 3 year plans) and $500 - $1000 flat screen TV's shouldn't be setting you back by much. $500 should just be at most, be a quarter of a middle-class' monthly income. Much less, in a dual-income household as we're not in the 50's and 60's anymore where the wives primarily stay home, and women make considerably less.

And if $500 is a big drop for you that it will set you back almost a year, and not just a month (or two at most)... well, that's not middle-class in the first place IMO.

[ScizzMoney]

Middle class in my eyes are generally the people that will pay for a 'luxury-ish' vehicle with their wages.

Of course that is not the only criteria for me. But, that is a common trait among the middle class that will keep them from reaching the next level.

[Traum]

Socialism.

I would live happily in a system where there is no wealth gap, where items are distributed in accordance to need, and luxury could be obtained for all by means of progress as a whole.
Unless you live in Utopia, the ideology would never work. We live in a real world where real people have both altruistic and selfish tendencies.

As an aside, I don't think what you describe above is socialism. It seems a lot more like communism than anything else, and the whole world knows communism doesn't work on a practical level.

[coolname]

Socialism.


I would live happily in a system where there is no wealth gap, where items are distributed in accordance to need, and luxury could be obtained for all by means of progress as a whole.

ya you would be happy to live in that system till you notice your dead beat neighbour bill who calls in sick every other day and when he does show up work spends the whole time on a coffee break is making the same yearly salary as you who always shows up to work and works your ass off well there. At this point you would probably say "fuck that im not going to work hard any more" and next thing you know the whole country is fucked because nobody shows up to work and nothing is getting done, but at least there isnt any income gap and everyone is suffering equally.

your post also implies that in are current system luxury and living standards are only improved for the rich and the lower class and even middle class never get to experience their living standards increasing. This isnt true at all, the rich become rich be offering a service that people are willing to pay for because it makes there lives better. If what the rich where offering didnt improve the living standards of consumer then the consumer wouldn't purchase the service and the rich wouldn't be rich.

"but, the rich have all these other luxury's no middle class or lower class
could ever afford like multiple houses and cars that cant be fair. "

and the middle and lower class currently also have many luxury's that previous generations couldnt afford either such as cars, iphones, tv's, laptops, etc. Fact is everyone on this planets living standard is improving and the people who are the most to responsible for that is the rich.

If there was no reward for inventing a new product that would improve the living standard of the world why would someone put in all the effort required. Do you think Henry Ford would of bothered making cars accessible to the average person in north america if he would of made the same wage doing the bare minimum of work required at a much simpler job as would be the case in your ideal country? How about Thomas Edison do you think he would of stayed up late countless night in a row trying to invent something everyone said was impossible if there was no reward in the end?

you are now going to reply with something like "i know it is not feasible in the real world, but wouldn't it be great if it was and everyone still worked really hard"

well sure just add it to list of the rest of things that are impossible but would be really cool if they weren't, you could put it in-between humans being able to fly like birds and humans being able to shoot lasers from are eyes.

Honestly how cool would it be if we could fly around like birds with laser eyesight, it would be totally insane!

[Manic!]

I fail to see the connection between the shrinking middle class and frivolous expenses like smart phones or a flat screen TV's and the like

First of all. $500 smart phones, (if people even still pay for it and not have it subsidized by 2 or 3 year plans) and $500 - $1000 flat screen TV's shouldn't be setting you back by much. $500 should just be at most, be a quarter of a middle-class' monthly income. Much less, in a dual-income household as we're not in the 50's and 60's anymore where the wives primarily stay home, and women make considerably less.

And if $500 is a big drop for you that it will set you back almost a year, and not just a month (or two at most)... well, that's not middle-class in the first place IMO.

The phones are not free your are just paying for them monthly. Both parents have a $500 phone, kids also have them. That's minimum $120 to $180 a month. If the kids are not old enough for one they have a Ipod and an Ipad plus maybe a laptop. Also those things have to be updated. lets not forget
the cable,internet bill, and line bill. that's another $100 plus a month. Then you have your video game systems and all the expenses that come with that.

Remember wives staying at home only meant one car and no child care expenses.

[Noir]

The phones are not free your are just paying for them monthly. Both parents have a $500 phone, kids also have them. That's minimum $120 to $180 a month. If the kids are not old enough for one they have a Ipod and an Ipad plus maybe a laptop. Also those things have to be updated. lets not forget
the cable,internet bill, and line bill. that's another $100 plus a month. Then you have your video game systems and all the expenses that come with that.

Remember wives staying at home only meant one car and no child care expenses.

Okay.

1) Who says parents pay for the kids phone bill? I know of many a teenagers that have to pay for theirs

2) I know many a parents who pay for their kids phone bill. Why, because:
a) they can afford it
b) they want the security that they can reach their kids at any time... and vise-versa. The kids can reach their parents, or anyone, at all times.

So okay. it bumps your monthly bill by $50 per child. Do you prefer the alternative?

3) Lastly, even if you're right and the expenses of parenthood is sky-rocketing... well thank goodness the trend shows that we're having less and less babies. Mean's that people are keeping it in line aren't they. Unless your a dumbass parent, people are only having kids they can afford.

So, shouldn't that be a mitigating factor?

And please, by update, don't make it sound that it's traditional for families to buy Ipads and Laptops once a year. let's not exaggerate just for the sake of making a point.




Okay, let's continue on about these other luxury items. Ipads and Laptops. Yes I see them a lot, but are they per child, per family member, or per household?

Honestly, I only see the case of "per family member" either when each kin is of age and can afford to pay her own way, or if you come from affluent families themselves.



Yes I will agree that the standard of living has improved greatly over the decades, but I refuse to blame smart phones and laptops to be the downfall of the middle class.

[Manic!]

Okay.

1) Who says parents pay for the kids phone bill? I know of many a teenagers that have to pay for theirs

2) I know many a parents who pay for their kids phone bill. Why, because:
a) they can afford it
b) they want the security that they can reach their kids at any time... and vise-versa. The kids can reach their parents, or anyone, at all times.

So okay. it bumps your monthly bill by $50 per child. Do you prefer the alternative?

3) Lastly, even if you're right and the expenses of parenthood is sky-rocketing... well thank goodness the trend shows that we're having less and less babies. Mean's that people are keeping it in line aren't they. Unless your a dumbass parent, people are only having kids they can afford.

So, shouldn't that be a mitigating factor?

And please, by update, don't make it sound that it's traditional for families to buy Ipads and Laptops once a year. let's not exaggerate just for the sake of making a point.




Okay, let's continue on about these other luxury items. Ipads and Laptops. Yes I see them a lot, but are they per child, per family member, or per household?

Honestly, I only see the case of "per family member" either when each kin is of age and can afford to pay her own way, or if you come from affluent families themselves.



Yes I will agree that the standard of living has improved greatly over the decades, but I refuse to blame smart phones and laptops to be the downfall of the middle class.

I know kids that have broken multple Ipods/pads. Those screens are easy to crack.

But it's not just cell phones and laptops it's everything else. A hockey stick use to cost 20 bux now every kid has a $100 plus carbon fiber stick every year. Before it was one TV and one computer now everyone has one. People are having less kids but every kid is getting way more. Back in the 80's a Million dollars was a lot. In Nanaimo you could buy a water front house 2 Mercedes and still have 500K left. Now a Million is nothing. Also look at house sizes. family's have gotten smaller but houses have gotten bigger.

[jasonturbo]

So there seems to be a few people who insist that the shrinking middle class is a result of our newly acquired taste for luxurious goods we do not need.

In 2011 average house costs approx. 750k.
In 1987 average house cost approx. 130k

http://vreaa.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/van_house_price_1960_2012.png

In 2011, median household income was 57.2k
In 1987, median household income was 52.7k

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m3vn_dZiwgA/Unl3-c0Ia6I/AAAAAAAAC98/812L3So6Bn4/s400/vancouver+median+total+income.jpg

So using simple logic, we have the average person, buying the average house, in their respective time periods. (Numbers below based on 10% down, 5% fixed, 25 year mortgage)
2011: 3925/month, or roughly 83% of gross income.
1987: 680/month, or roughly 15% of gross income.

So if households in the 80's only needed to spend 15% of gross income to afford the average house, WHAT THE FFFF did they spend the other 85% on?????

There is a big difference between your "perspective" and statistics/reality. Just because you don't remember people living lavishly during the years gone by doesn't mean they weren't, it only means you were not exposed to, or aware of it at the time.

(Yes I am aware of the period of hyperinflation during the 80's, sure it's a factor, but not nearly significant enough to offset the dfference in cost of housing vs. income in my example.)

[SideOfCarrots]

Back in the 80's a Million dollars was a lot. In Nanaimo you could buy a water front house 2 Mercedes and still have 500K left. Now a Million is nothing. Also look at house sizes. family's have gotten smaller but houses have gotten bigger.

But what you are talking about it all relative.

Yes, back in the 80s a million could buy that. Back in the 60s a million could by twice that. Back in the 30s a million dollars was unheard of (yes, I know I am reaching).

Humans have a bad habit of only thinking about the present as "time" is a hard concept to process. We also seem to always think that the here and now is the best/worst/most expensive/complicated/etc. period, but it never is.

I don't know what type of world that you exist in where every adult and child has an iPad, iPod, laptop, cell phones, etc., houses have TVs in every corner, and people have multiple cars. I get that it DOES happen, but it certainly is not the norm.

I deal with a lot of people. A lot of people from all various types of backgrounds (racially, socially, economically, etc) and I have a big family with a lot of kids. This shit ain't the norm.

Take that pick of the Zack Morris kid from the 80s. You know the one leaning back in his chair with the commodore 64 computer on his desk, the brick phone on his ear, the atari console on the floor, tube tv in the corner, etc. Looking at that, would you assume every kid had those things? Of course not.

I think you are over-exaggerating what "everyone" has and the financial gaps between the decades. As I said above, it is all relative.

[ScizzMoney]

So there seems to be a few people who insist that the shrinking middle class is a result of our newly acquired taste for luxurious goods we do not need...

Not sure who is saying that. Everyone should agree that housing is the main reason for most cities (There is still affordable housing in the country, you just have to not mind living away from major cities). Consumer debt has risen like mad over the past few decades. Credit card debt is a serious problem for a fair amount of people.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is people are spending money they don't have more than ever before and it is not helping the problem. Combine that with the cost of living and it will make it worse.

[Traum]

So there seems to be a few people who insist that the shrinking middle class is a result of our newly acquired taste for luxurious goods we do not need.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is people are spending money they don't have more than ever before and it is not helping the problem. Combine that with the cost of living and it will make it worse.
I don't know what to make of either claims, but a quick search on Canadian bankruptcy numbers came up with the following chart:

Canadian Bankruptcy Statistics - 1980 - 2013. (http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/bankstats1.htm)

http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/images/bankchart2012.gif

The info is obtained from Canadian Bankruptcy Statistics - 1980 - 2013. (http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/bankstats1.htm). I dunno how accurate these Canadian bankruptcy numbers are since it isn't coming from an authoritative source. The chart also doesn't say how much the debts are before the person / companies declared itself bankrupt, so it certainly isn't telling us the whole picture.

But assuming that the Canadian bankruptcy info is correct, it seems like the total number of them over the past 15 years or so has been quite stable -- except for the obvious blip of anomaly during the Great Recession of 2008/2009.

[Geoc]

I find this whole shrinking middle class unsurprising. What was the middle class before? It ranged from factory workers to paper pushers.

With the proliferation of computerized automation, ease of communications (email, phone, fax etc) and globalization, all these jobs can get shifted elsewhere or replaced completely.

It has reached a point where the only reason your job still exist and hasn't been replaced by a robot or a random dude in India is either because of your specialization or you aren't compensated appropriately for your cost of living.

Even those who feel safe in their job right now are in jeopardy as software continues to improve and developing countries grow more and more educated and resourceful.

[Traum]

I find this whole shrinking middle class unsurprising. What was the middle class before? It ranged from factory workers to paper pushers.

With the proliferation of computerized automation, ease of communications (email, phone, fax etc) and globalization, all these jobs can get shifted elsewhere or replaced completely.

It has reached a point where the only reason your job still exist and hasn't been replaced my a robot or a random dude in India is either because of your specialization or you aren't compensated comfortably.
You are overlooking the sizable number of reductions in SME/SMB. These are your mom and pop shops, your indie mechanic shops, your independent restaurants, and most importantly, a vital source in creativity on new business ideas, products, and services.

Traditionally, SME/SMB has been a staple in driving our economy forward. Increasingly, however, they are being driven out by big companies, either through sheer competition and/or acquisitions, and probably many other additional reasons. But at the end of the day, it is all because everyone places to fxxking much emphasis on the bottom line. Other intangibles are simply just ignored.

[RRxtar]

Someone dig up comparisons between personal consumer debt in the 80s and today.

It might just be my own experience talking, but everyone I knew when I was a kid, if they couldn't afford it, they didn't have it. Now if you cant afford it, its ok, because you're entitled to borrow for it.

My family car was 20 years old, and only the well off people that my parents were friends with had new cars and I dont think leasing was around back then. And I dont mean a BMW either.


My point that is under discussion wasn't so much about the cost of the things people have today, but more so, the luxuries that EVERYONE has. And almost all of it is bought on borrowed money. Even cellphones are paid for with borrowed money rolled into the contract. Everywhere you look is luxury this luxury that, and everyone feels they need need need it right now.

[Sid Vicious]

this chart should be all you need to consult.

http://theeconomicanalyst.com/sites/default/files/article_inside/2011/01/house-price-to-disposable-income-canada.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z9HcyzNMTN0/T6l84WHm5fI/AAAAAAAADfQ/8oQZfvVAZWc/s1600/Canadian+Cities+Average+Annual+House+Prices+In+Tho usands+%28+Inflation+Adjusted+in+1980+$%29.jpg

people arent borrowing more money for random pointless shit, but you know...stuff like shelter

[Geoc]

You are overlooking the sizable number of reductions in SME/SMB. These are your mom and pop shops, your indie mechanic shops, your independent restaurants, and most importantly, a vital source in creativity on new business ideas, products, and services.

Traditionally, SME/SMB has been a staple in driving our economy forward. Increasingly, however, they are being driven out by big companies, either through sheer competition and/or acquisitions, and probably many other additional reasons. But at the end of the day, it is all because everyone places to fxxking much emphasis on the bottom line. Other intangibles are simply just ignored.

That's because technological changes has enabled companies to use an unfathomably high level of operational leverage.

Companies have always been seeking the bottom line and only the bottom line. It just happened that they had high marginal costs and had to take significantly larger risks to expand and compete against certain small shops in the past.

[4444]

So there seems to be a few people who insist that the shrinking middle class is a result of our newly acquired taste for luxurious goods we do not need.

In 2011 average house costs approx. 750k.
In 1987 average house cost approx. 130k

http://vreaa.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/van_house_price_1960_2012.png

In 2011, median household income was 57.2k
In 1987, median household income was 52.7k

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m3vn_dZiwgA/Unl3-c0Ia6I/AAAAAAAAC98/812L3So6Bn4/s400/vancouver+median+total+income.jpg

So using simple logic, we have the average person, buying the average house, in their respective time periods. (Numbers below based on 10% down, 5% fixed, 25 year mortgage)
2011: 3925/month, or roughly 83% of gross income.
1987: 680/month, or roughly 15% of gross income.

So if households in the 80's only needed to spend 15% of gross income to afford the average house, WHAT THE FFFF did they spend the other 85% on?????

There is a big difference between your "perspective" and statistics/reality. Just because you don't remember people living lavishly during the years gone by doesn't mean they weren't, it only means you were not exposed to, or aware of it at the time.

(Yes I am aware of the period of hyperinflation during the 80's, sure it's a factor, but not nearly significant enough to offset the dfference in cost of housing vs. income in my example.)

Are these real or nominal numbers? I'm shocked if in 1987 dollars ppl made $52k or so, with housing costing $150k in '87 bucks, mind you 3x earnings is actually bang on.

I'd imagine the 150k price is in 87 bucks, and $52k earnings are in 2013 dollars

[RRxtar]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z9HcyzNMTN0/T6l84WHm5fI/AAAAAAAADfQ/8oQZfvVAZWc/s1600/Canadian+Cities+Average+Annual+House+Prices+In+Tho usands+%28+Inflation+Adjusted+in+1980+$%29.jpg

people arent borrowing more money for random pointless shit, but you know...stuff like shelter
Just because you live in the fucked up real estate capitol called Vancouver.....

Most areas of the country, prices are fairly flat up until 05/06. Did we all forget what happened then? And then what happend 3 years later because of it? People who previously could not afford a house and rented decided they could now buy a house (and be house poor because of it) partly because the cost of borrowing money for it (interest rates) were so low. Housing prices in the 80s would have climbed the same was as they have over the last 8 years if interest rates werent 20%. If it is cheap to borrow money, more people will borrow more money than they can afford.

Rent prices haven't really changed at all, and in alot of areas have come down. Having shelter does not mean buying a house.

[Anjew]

You are overlooking the sizable number of reductions in SME/SMB. These are your mom and pop shops, your indie mechanic shops, your independent restaurants, and most importantly, a vital source in creativity on new business ideas, products, and services.

Traditionally, SME/SMB has been a staple in driving our economy forward. Increasingly, however, they are being driven out by big companies, either through sheer competition and/or acquisitions, and probably many other additional reasons. But at the end of the day, it is all because everyone places to fxxking much emphasis on the bottom line. Other intangibles are simply just ignored.

I think the internet (ebay, kickstarter, facebook, blogging etc..) has replaced many old ways of doing business.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Someone dig up comparisons between personal consumer debt in the 80s and today.

It might just be my own experience talking, but everyone I knew when I was a kid, if they couldn't afford it, they didn't have it. Now if you cant afford it, its ok, because you're entitled to borrow for it.

My family car was 20 years old, and only the well off people that my parents were friends with had new cars and I dont think leasing was around back then. And I dont mean a BMW either.


My point that is under discussion wasn't so much about the cost of the things people have today, but more so, the luxuries that EVERYONE has. And almost all of it is bought on borrowed money. Even cellphones are paid for with borrowed money rolled into the contract. Everywhere you look is luxury this luxury that, and everyone feels they need need need it right now.

Right on. i heard it awhile back so it might not be accurate but on the news it mention that average Canadians debt is about 30k per adult and that's not including mortgage, or car loans, car lease........ So yea we sure borrow a lot of money to buy the luxury........

I wonder what would happen though if interest rate is to even raise by 1 to 2% and people can no long afford to pay min payment to afford these luxury items.