Many Canadians in their 30s, 40s not saving enough for retirement

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think the above is true of people living in the 1950s and earlier. It doesn't apply to the baby boomers.

Peolpe in the 1950s may not have had as many electronics devises, but both careers and houses were much mroe readily available than they are now.

I think the excess of consumer products has moer to do with those products falling in price than peolpe being more frugal. I suspect that people spent a similar proportion of their income on those things. It just happened that a black and white television cost far more than a widescreen plasma does now.

I think the culture of unnecessary replacement of perfectly good things actually started in the late 80's really. Since the 70's our whole veiw of what a family needs has become essentailly upper middle class no matter what we earn which is why we now borrow ourselves ito the ground.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think the culture of unnecessary replacement of perfectly good things actually started in the late 80's really. Since the 70's our whole veiw of what a family needs has become essentailly upper middle class no matter what we earn which is why we now borrow ourselves ito the ground.

I can agree with this. One thing that illustrates this is how movies typically portray the standard of living of the protagonist. Typically the stories told by Hollywood, even when trying to connect with the common person, are ones that are out the range of 95% of people's incomes. Even when the protagonist is cast in a typical average job they seem to have the trappings and lifestyle of high income earners.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I can appreciate where this is coming from. However I counter that in defence of ETFs you have to offer up something that proves that the 'star managers' tend to beat the index enough to justify their fees over the long term. Not only that you will have to also prove that the star managers of tomorrow are easily identified today in a way that makes it actionable.

Also your criticism of ETFs seems to be parcelled in with the belief that the person using them would do so inefficiently (Not really an apples vs apples comparison, because mismanagement would crater returns in any case). Should someone understand proper asset allocation and use ETFs in conjuntion with stocks, bonds, et al to build and rebalance their portfolio according to their needs and risk tolerance over time, then it should just come down to an analysis of returns between fund products and ETFs.

That does appear to be the case, but the waters are murkier now than they were a few years ago:https://secure.globeadvisor.com/serv...YSIDE17ART1857

I use ETFs when the shoe fits (and many professional managers in various areas do as well). There are some concerning areas being brought up here though. The transparency is hard to manage and many ETFs use derivatives a fair amount. Tax-wise there can be large consequences as well and while holding them in an RRSP doesn't cause concern in this area the same cannot be said for non-registered holdings.

[macker]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

Globalization at work.
Canada and the States barely manufacture anything besides vehicles. Other nations can produce those products cheaper, hence north america can buy those consumer goods cheapers.


It is a competitive global labour market now. Telecommutting technology is only going to make it more competitive, as video conferencing, virtual offices, working from home enables people from other countries to take certain north american 'white collar' jobs.

You got that right. China is basically the banker of the US and this likely won't change anytime soon. Global competition + pension plan liability basically killed GM and other companies in the most competitive industrys. There is no way we will see a return to pension plans at companies as those days are long gone. Global compeition has changed the playing field and this not only effects pension plans but all employee benefits. Look at Starbucks.....today they spend more on health benefits then they do on coffee. Not sustainable. It extends elsewhere also. Look at the 1/2 Trillion pension liability that the State of California is on the hook for. Who is going to pay for that? Too big to fail or so big that the government is protecting you....meanwhile the average labor costs in China are $1.27 per hour and the US $25.34 per hour.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

Globalization at work.
Canada and the States barely manufacture anything besides vehicles. Other nations can produce those products cheaper, hence north america can buy those consumer goods cheapers.

Double edged sword though. Manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past. These jobs were the bread and butter of the labour market in the 50s,60s,70s. Kids with no education making more than a living being able to afford more than a house.

It is a competitive global labour market now. Telecommutting technology is only going to make it more competitive, as video conferencing, virtual offices, working from home enables people from other countries to take certain north american 'white collar' jobs.

I agree with you 100%. The global market is yet another reason why things are so much tougher for this generation.

Not only is there competition for jobs, but there is also more competition for real estate. Especially in coastal cities like Vancovuer, NYC, LA. You not only have to deal with local demand, but demand from millionaires oversees.

This goes back to my argument that the two things people need most, home and a stable job, are much harder to attain for this generation than the one before it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think the culture of unnecessary replacement of perfectly good things actually started in the late 80's really. Since the 70's our whole veiw of what a family needs has become essentailly upper middle class no matter what we earn which is why we now borrow ourselves ito the ground.

I think replaceable things had just as much to do with the quality of affordable products as it did with people's views.

Durable products are still available, but good luck affording them. A decent cabinet made of decent wood will cost you thousands. Instead people are forced to buy Ikea goods and replace them every 5 years.

The same goes with clothes. Durable high quality clothes are still available, but they are extremely expensive. Instead people buy 20 dollar t-shirts that fall apart after a year.

Is this an issue of people wanting low quality goods, or does it have more to do with a reduction in buying power?

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think replaceable things had just as much to do with the quality of affordable products as it did with people's views.

Durable products are still available, but good luck affording them. A decent cabinet made of decent wood will cost you thousands. Instead people are forced to buy Ikea goods and replace them every 5 years.

The same goes with clothes. Durable high quality clothes are still available, but they are extremely expensive. Instead people buy 20 dollar t-shirts that fall apart after a year.

Is this an issue of people wanting low quality goods, or does it have more to do with a reduction in buying power?

How many people have replaced perfectly functioning TVs with bigger ones with better technology?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

How many people have replaced perfectly functioning TVs with bigger ones with better technology?

I replaced by SD with HD, how many people back in the day replaced their black and white TVs with colour TVs though?

[V]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think replaceable things had just as much to do with the quality of affordable products as it did with people's views.

Durable products are still available, but good luck affording them. A decent cabinet made of decent wood will cost you thousands. Instead people are forced to buy Ikea goods and replace them every 5 years.

The same goes with clothes. Durable high quality clothes are still available, but they are extremely expensive. Instead people buy 20 dollar t-shirts that fall apart after a year.

Is this an issue of people wanting low quality goods, or does it have more to do with a reduction in buying power?

We have an Ikea Billy cabinet, coffee table, kitchen table, dining room table and numerous bookshelves that we bought 10 years ago when we got married. They are still fully functioning furniture, and I don't expect to replace them any time soon.

We're just now on our second set of couch and love seat in those 10 years as well. Both sets cost $200 through the bargain finder.

I have the same 32" TV that we bought 10 years ago. We bought a perfectly solid TV cabinet for $100 6 years ago that is still doing just fine.

I think the perception of what needs to be thrown away these days is significantly different than it was years ago.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by V

We have an Ikea Billy cabinet, coffee table, kitchen table, dining room table and numerous bookshelves that we bought 10 years ago when we got married. They are still fully functioning furniture, and I don't expect to replace them any time soon.

We're just now on our second set of couch and love seat in those 10 years as well. Both sets cost $200 through the bargain finder.

I have the same 32" TV that we bought 10 years ago. We bought a perfectly solid TV cabinet for $100 6 years ago that is still doing just fine.

I think the perception of what needs to be thrown away these days is significantly different than it was years ago.

How does anyone not have an HD TV in this day and age? You're seriously missing out. I turned on the old 27" CRT TV in the spare room the other day and couldn't believe we used to actually sit there and watch hockey games and TV shows in that quality. It's awful.

[V]

I don't know, I never got caught up in it. I've seen enough games in HD, and honestly, I just don't understand the hype. I can follow the game just fine on my TV.