We're earning less

[Atomoa]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/today_youth ... an_history

Even after adjusting for inflation, those between the ages of 25-34 are earning $4,200 less today than the same age group earned three decades earlier. There's also been a noticeable growth in the generational income divide – in 1980, Canadians aged 25-34 earned 47% more than Canadians aged 50-54. Today they earn 64% less.

[fluffy]

There's also been a noticeable growth in the generational income divide – in [u]1980, Canadians aged 25-34 earned 47% more than Canadians aged 50-54. Today they earn 64% less.]

I wonder if it's worth noting that the higher earners from the years past and the current higher earners are the same people? People entering the workforce in the sixties and seventies had the benefit of a couple of significant boom periods, plus easier access to higher education and job training.

[Atomoa]

I wonder if it's worth noting that the higher earners from the years past and the current higher earners are the same people? People entering the workforce in the sixties and seventies had the benefit of a couple of significant boom periods, plus easier access to higher education and job training.

The old boys club holds onto their golden wages and when they retire they are replaced by half a 23 year old worker with a Uni degree for 1/5th the salary which will never rise to the previous level. The new worker is also working twice as much as the old worker, gets less vacation and no pension. That's how they've keep their riches - by only paying themselves and making everyone else work twice as much for half the wage.

Wages staying static (actually falling behind) didnt happen by accident. This was done by design. Those who designed it are in that age and income group.

[The Green Barbarian]

it's too bad that your own only source for this story about "we" earning less was a website dedicated to the communist movement.

I always chuckle at revisionists who want to peddle the blarney that somehow things were so much better in the past, because "we" somehow made more money. If that was true, I definitely didn't experience that. I also think that "middle class" is now just some word thrown around by politicians. We would have been considered "middle class" back in the day, yet when I look at what is considered "middle class" now, there is a wide gulf, so it makes me question the assertion that somehow "we' made more back in the past.

For instance - my family maybe went to two movies a year. Now every "Middle class" kid sees every movie that is out. Our vacations consisted of short camping trips. "We" never went to Disneyland, and didn't even think about it as it wasn't an option. Now try and find a kid who hasn't been there, who is "middle class". We did play sports, but it was with hand me down equipment from friends and family. We didn't get new stuff. Wasn't an option. Now, if a kid plays hockey, and he's "middle class", he's got all new stuff, all the time. "We" didn't have pets, because pets cost money. Now try and find a "middle class" family that doesn't have a dog, or two dogs. "We" didn't get braces, even though braces were needed for our teeth. We just had to accept that we would have crooked teeth. Now try and find a middle class kid who needs braces who doesn't get them. "We" didn't eat out at restaurants, like ever. Maybe a trip once a year to Macdonalds, where we'd be told that the meal was costing $20 and we better appreciate it, because that's a lot of money. Now, kids eat out all the time. If they are middle class.

Anyway, what I am saying is that I don't buy the load of crap this article is trying to sell. Not at all.

[The Green Barbarian]

It didnt happen by accident. This was done by design. Those who designed it are in that age and income group.

yawn.

[Atomoa]

For instance - my family maybe went to two movies a year. Now every "Middle class" kid sees every movie that is out. Our vacations consisted of short camping trips. "We" never went to Disneyland, and didn't even think about it as it wasn't an option. Now try and find a kid who hasn't been there, who is "middle class". We did play sports, but it was with hand me down equipment from friends and family. We didn't get new stuff. Wasn't an option. Now, if a kid plays hockey, and he's "middle class", he's got all new stuff, all the time. "We" didn't have pets, because pets cost money. Now try and find a "middle class" family that doesn't have a dog, or two dogs. "We" didn't get braces, even though braces were needed for our teeth. We just had to accept that we would have crooked teeth. Now try and find a middle class kid who needs braces who doesn't get them. "We" didn't eat out at restaurants, like ever.

That's a great observational story.

How does that relate to the hard math and statistics? In 1976 a 34 year old Canadian made 38,000 a year. In 2010 they made 34,000 a year. Those are inflation adjusted dollars so that means they lost $4600 in wages. Add in tuition and housing costs for kicks and see where the new generation sits.

[fluffy]

Blue collar jobs that paid a decent wage were a little easier to come by back in the day. In BC, the resource sector was dependable. I finished high school in the mid seventies and you didn't worry about work in those days because you could always go logging and you could always go mining. Fill out the application and wait for the phone call. Usually two or three days, and there was no trepidation about hiring an eighteen year old greenhorn. I put myself through post secondary working underground in the summer. The playing field is a little different these days.

[Atomoa]

The playing field is a little different these days.

The playing field was designed to be this way.

In 1980, Canadians aged 25-34 earned 47% more than Canadians aged 50-54. Today they earn 64% less.

That is a amazing stat. Almost a full reversal.

Who starts a family at age 50-54?

[OREZ]

People entering the workforce in the sixties and seventies had the benefit of a couple of significant boom periods, plus easier access to higher education and job training.

Easier access and far less expensive education. It would also seem that there were far fewer requirements for entry level positions back then.

If we don't somehow figure out how to make higher education more affordable and therefore available to more people we will all lose out in the long run. I believe that years of complacency on this issue has limited our potential as a country.

[The Green Barbarian]

That's a great observational story.
.

Thanks. It may be "observational" but it also is based in some kind of reality, unlike your press progress gang who seem to be at home only in a Politburo.

[The Green Barbarian]

Easier access and far less expensive education. It would also seem that there were far fewer requirements for entry level positions back then.

If we don't somehow figure out how to make higher education more affordable and therefore available to more people we will all lose out in the long run. I believe that years of complacency on this issue has limited our potential as a country.

the saw-off would be that kids then take courses/get degrees based in real world stuff that helps them find a job. Giving them almost free education is useless if they just go and get a useless arts degree and only learn how to complain and protest against the "system" after being brain-washed by *removed* leftists. There should also be some kind of limit on education degrees, as it makes no sense to continue to churn out thousands of new teachers every year who have no hope of finding an actual job due to over saturation.

[Muzza]

A little more accurate information set from Stats Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2 ... 03-eng.htm

[fluffy]

The playing field was designed to be this way.

Please elaborate. Designed by who, "they" ?

With the global economy, something that wasn't quite so pervasive a few decades back, we are now competing against people who are willing to work for a fraction of what we would look at as a poverty level income in Canada.

[fluffy]

A little more accurate information set from Stats Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2 ... 03-eng.htm

Hmmm, doesn't exactly support the "earning less" argument, does it? On the other hand, the table covers "family" income so we would really need to see some comparative stats on how many families had both parents earning an income then and now.

[Muzza]

Hmmm, doesn't exactly support the "earning less" argument, does it?

Kinda blows the entire earning less argument out of the water!