Millennials: Avocados or homes?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Did you do the math on that one?

Yeah, you'd have to be working some pretty crazy OT to be pulling in $60k on minimum wage.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think it's naive. We are not simply a collection of what our parents taught us to be. We are our own choices.

I grew up pretty poor with parents that couldn't save, couldn't budget, declared bankruptcy, died penniless, and taught me nothing about finance. I run an investment company.

Saying Tacopuck is naive, is naive, IMO.

Likely outcomes /= absolute outcomes.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Likely outcomes /= absolute outcomes.

Judging people, based on a single internet post, with no other personal context or information /= likely outcomes

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Judging people, based on a single internet post, with no other personal context or information /= likely outcomes

What? I'm talking about the probability of upward class mobility in the context of property ownership or the ability to increase one's wealth. Your ceiling is heavily influenced by your socioeconomic status at birth and a myriad of other factors while growing up, such as the intelligence of your parents.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Did you do the math on that one?

Should have been "middle class job" at $60k/year, not minimum wage job...

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Born on third base. Think they hit a triple. We all think like that to a certain degree. (I'm not singling out Zarley with that BTW, but Tacopuck's comment that if he had been brought up in a single-parent family he'd basically be in the same advantageous situation he is now comes across as naive).

I'll admit that I've been lucky - I've never received monetary help from my parents since I moved out, but they did instill prudent financial skills from an early age. I'm fortunate that one of my uncles encouraged me to mess around on the stock markets in my teens and that's what really cemented my interest in investing. The majority of people do not learn these lessons until much later in life, if at all.

Most people do not understand the time value of money, let alone how to utilize debt properly (as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread). This is why we should be focusing on teaching personal finance at an early age.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What? I'm talking about the probability of upward class mobility in the context of property ownership or the ability to increase one's wealth. Your ceiling is heavily influenced by your socioeconomic status at birth and a myriad of other factors while growing up, such as the intelligence of your parents.

Anyways, no need to bicker about this, my point is that this upwards social mobility is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. Property has historically been the primary way North Americans acquire wealth, which really isn't an option for most any more. Starting a business has never been more difficult with the rising costs of rent and labour.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by blankall

$200k condo huh?

Here's the issue. The condo you're talking about costs $400k. Then when you afford that, how do you move up into the house. It takes another decade of savings. Even in Calgary, which is in the middle of a recession, that's far more difficult than it was a year ago.

Also do you really think it's a good idea to advise people to be putting down a 4% down payment? Let's be realistic, if you don't have 20%, it's probably a bad idea....

40% of $400k is $160k. Let's say you have a minimum wage job at $60k/year, which leaves you with roughly $45k after taxes....Do the math on that one? And that's to move your family into a cramped condo in Calgary, which is going through a recession.

You missed the part about "timing the booms and busts well". If you can do that, three years.

If not, well... I guess you're screwed

[Tacopuck]

There were far more hardships in my family then my posts lead on, but that said every person has some form of hardship in their life, and some have it way "worse" than others.

Would taking the same path be harder from a single parent family as opposed to a two parent family, I would say absolutely yes, but it still wouldn't change my methodology.

I dislike using hardships or ####ty life events as an excuse why something couldn't be achieved as everyone everyone can provide some sort of anecdotal evidence of why they're harder up on luck, problem is its not measurable.

Judge me and my background as you please, I'm not looking for your validation.

[jammies]

If everyone spent their money prudently, our economy would collapse. I prefer the "churn" theory, where hundreds of jobs depend on me continuing to spend like a pirate ridding himself of other people's doubloons.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

You missed the part about "timing the booms and busts well". If you can do that, three years.

If not, well... I guess you're screwed

Well, we're all assuming there's a bust coming....This "boom" has been going on for a historically unprecedented time and didn't seem to slow down, even when Calgary's economy hit the crapper.

Things are so bad now, that a bust is going to have such a tremendously bad effect on the economy that any positives will be negated. A rock and a hard place.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What? I'm talking about the probability of upward class mobility in the context of property ownership or the ability to increase one's wealth. Your ceiling is heavily influenced by your socioeconomic status at birth and a myriad of other factors while growing up, such as the intelligence of your parents.

This set of posts was in reference to Sliver calling Taco naive, which was unjustifiable IMO. You are now changing the context, so we're done.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have no doubt that a coffee in a cafe was more, in real dollars, then than it is now.

The point though, is that no one was doing it - no one got their coffee that way. The idea of 'buying' a coffee everyday was a completely new trend that started in the nineties (or at least really caught on then).

People didn't go to coffee shops every morning. Nor did they have personal phones, personal computers, subscriptions for music, movies, etc. Nothing like that existed.

This doesn't really jive with reality. Sure they didn't have personal computers or portable phones in the '70s, because those things didn't exist. Just like people in the '30s didn't have televisions in their home.

So yeah, they didn't spend as much money on coffee from a cafe, but they also spent a lot more on things like cigarettes and alcohol. And people didn't travel as often, but when they did they spent far, far more than they do today to get where they were going and the end result was that overall travel spending hasn't changed too much.

The fact is, in the 1970s people spent a far higher proportion of their income on consumer goods and services than they do now and that's indisputable. The largest increases in expenses since than have occurred in things like housing, health care, education, and financial services/insurance. Not a lot of discretionary spending in there so I don't really buy the idea that people are choosing to live more lavishly now compared to the 1970s.

[Wood]

What do you guys think of these new fidget spinner toys?

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Wood

What do you guys think of these new fidget spinner toys?

An important Millennial question

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

This doesn't really jive with reality. Sure they didn't have personal computers or portable phones in the '70s, because those things didn't exist. Just like people in the '30s didn't have televisions in their home.

So yeah, they didn't spend as much money on coffee from a cafe, but they also spent a lot more on things like cigarettes and alcohol. And people didn't travel as often, but when they did they spent far, far more than they do today to get where they were going and the end result was that overall travel spending hasn't changed too much.

Nope. Oh, and cigarettes and alcohol were much cheaper.

The fact is, in the 1970s people spent a far higher proportion of their income on consumer goods and services than they do now and that's indisputable. The largest increases in expenses since than have occurred in things like housing, health care, education, and financial services/insurance. Not a lot of discretionary spending in there so I don't really buy the idea that people are choosing to live more lavishly now compared to the 1970s.

Well, if you don't buy it, then I guess it isn't true.

But there is really no comparison to life now vs the 70s. Standards of living have changed so much in so many ways.

[sun]

Vancouver is the third least affordable city on the planet.

Idiots who say we should just buy in Abbotsford are completely missing the point and likely won the lottery of all lotteries when they bought their ####ty Vancouver special in 2005 for a few hundred thousand and now poo poo those who complain about the fact that it costs $1000 per square foot to buy a condo in the downtown east side, where corpses with needles in their arms litter the alleys. Half a million dollars for zero bedrooms - "buy fewer lattes" lol.

[nik-]

Sounds like everyone who wants to buy a home in Vancouver should give up, immediately lay down in the street and die.

Using a downtown home purchase in one of the most insane real estate markets in the world really doesn't do a whole lot in terms of being an argument. Try a less extreme outlier.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by blankall

Starting a business has never been more difficult with the rising costs of rent and labour.

Don't think this is the case at all (unless you're only talking brick and mortar businesses).
Almost anyone can start an online business with very little cost, no brick and mortar costs, little inventory or employee costs, and greatly reduced marketing costs.
Competition may be greater, but accessibility to starting your own business has never been lower.

[FireGilbert]

It really bugs me listening to boomers who got houses for cheap telling the younger generations to just work harder and save more. The real problem is escalating prices caused by lack of supply and a drastic increase in housing as an investment both from locals and foreigners. Governments are filled with old dudes who own investment properties and they do not have the guts to make any changes to help first time home buyers get into the market.

Also the avocado argument is complete crap. For example if I wanted to buy a house in Sydney I could get into the bottom of the market in an condo or small house in the suburbs for maybe $600k if I was lucky. Needing 10% for a deposit and having to pay 10% tax that means I need to save $120k. If I cut out one $20 avo on toast each week it would take me 115 years to save that deposit. If I cut out one $20 avo and four $5 coffees I could cut that down to 58 years. Sure I could cut other things such as netflix and travel however I still want to do more with my life then sit around doing nothing while saving for a home.