Canadians 'drowning in debt': 47% will borrow to cover costs, survey says

[DoubleF]

For the DINK situation, I think it's more along the lines of envy. It's not completely a direct comparison for a DIWK to DINK, but more along the lines of realizing the opportunity cost that was required to start a family.

The comparison to the DINK lifestyle IMO is closer to a hesitation to change lifestyle to match that of with kids than without kids. It definitely sucks when you're watching friends go on dates in the way you used to do without batting an eye, vs excitement of doing groceries without the kids. I don't know about other families, but money was never truly the main thing that I miss the most from a DINK lifestyle, it's time. Drinking dropped drastically with kids. No damn way I want kid duties while hung over.

Originally Posted by Weitz

I see lots of people with kids be like "how do they afford to do this?" "how do they afford to by that?" When they have 2 kids and the people they are referring to are 2 professional DINK.

This is a bizarre take. I can't help but believe that these "lots of people" are more the exception than rule. None of my friends with kids think this way. The fantasy is being able to let go of the kids for a few weeks with someone we trust and run off and enjoy a vacation vicariously as if we were not anchored with a child. Not that I don't love my little guy, but I feel like my life is seriously lacking tranquility/sleep after the little guy arrived even though many other aspects of my life have improved for the better.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Torture

I'd argue that many aren't flexible/progressive enough to allow their workforce to work 4 days a week. Sure, you get the odd person here and there that has negotiated it as a one-off, but there's still a pretty pervasive "butts need to be in seats" mentality, even in the professional realm.

The "every other Friday off" thing is seemingly common.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Torture

I'd argue that many aren't flexible/progressive enough to allow their workforce to work 4 days a week. Sure, you get the odd person here and there that has negotiated it as a one-off, but there's still a pretty pervasive "butts need to be in seats" mentality, even in the professional realm.

The "butts need to be in seats" mentality is probably one of the most pervasively conservative business mentalities still around. Absolutely blows my mind that professional workers whose output is by definition creative are required to be around for 5 days and 40 hours a week.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

The "butts need to be in seats" mentality is probably one of the most pervasively conservative business mentalities still around. Absolutely blows my mind that professional workers whose output is by definition creative are required to be around for 5 days and 40 hours a week.

A lot of employers struggle to assess productivity. Hours at desk is a proxy for things that are much harder to measure.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of employers struggle to assess productivity. Hours at desk is a proxy for things that are much harder to measure.

Results would be a pretty easy metric to start using...

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, I'm still not seeing any evidence of that except for your word. Why would a hnw person use a line of credit to purchase a car just to sit on it and pay interest on a line of credit? If they're getting credit so cheap and risk free that the cost of borrowing is lower than their returns elsewhere, why aren't they just maxing out the loc and investing that? I don't get why they'd turn to credit to speculate on exotic cars.

I know lots who would qualify as high networth, and from what I see and hear - I agree with you on this. Pay in cash, not infrequently pre-owned. Exactly right, there is no need for credit on a car. They save their debt to leverage actual investments with return.

The exception would be the ones who like having a new car every year, and it's much less hassle to do a short term lease than do the purchase/sell cycle. These are the people that would sign up for a car subscription service if it ever comes to Calgary.

The only guy I know who uses credit to speculate on exotics and flip the occasional Learjet is Kulu, but that's actually his business.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by you&me

I think he means that people with kids will look to the lifestyle and spending habits of DINKs with a degree of envy, which isn't a fair comparison.

DINKs will have more free cash and far more free time to spend it than their seemingly-tied-down parental counterparts.

Yes but nothing beats having a couple slaves...errr I mean children... lol they get to do all the stuff I hate doing( ie kitty litter duty and dog duty in the back yard)

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by peter12

The "butts need to be in seats" mentality is probably one of the most pervasively conservative business mentalities still around. Absolutely blows my mind that professional workers whose output is by definition creative are required to be around for 5 days and 40 hours a week.

At the same time promoting office environments that make productivity worse. Open offices with the acoustics of live theater are the most hostile concept around.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of employers struggle to assess productivity. Hours at desk is a proxy for things that are much harder to measure.

Says more about the employer than it does the employees.

[Table 5]

I run a small design studio, and personally, I would love to hire someone to only work 3-4 days a week, and yet struggle to do so. A lot of people either want to be fully independent freelancers, or do the full-time job thing.

Working remotely though, or at least having the flexibility to do so, has been widely accepted, which is great.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I run a small design studio, and personally, I would love to hire someone to only work 3-4 days a week, and yet struggle to do so. A lot of people either want to be fully independent freelancers, or do the full-time job thing.

Working remotely though, or at least having the flexibility to do so, has been widely accepted, which is great.

I'm surprised someone doesn't take that 3-4 day guaranteed work and then freelance the rest of the time. Perhaps freelancer rates are higher rather than a freelancer/permanent employee split?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm surprised someone doesn't take that 3-4 day guaranteed work and then freelance the rest of the time. Perhaps freelancer rates are higher rather than a freelancer/permanent employee split?

Freelance rates are pretty high, but a 60% FTE and freelance work would be pretty great.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm surprised someone doesn't take that 3-4 day guaranteed work and then freelance the rest of the time.

I know, that's what I would do! The hardest part about freelancing is the roller coaster ride, so I think having some stability would be great.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Perhaps freelancer rates are higher rather than a freelancer/permanent employee split?

If you're good and have a good client base, freelancing full time is definitely the most lucrative. However that often can take years to achieve.

A freelance/full-time mix is probably a situation that works best for people who have been out for a few years, or who have kids or other interests they want to dedicate time to. Most of my hires tend to be fresh out of art school though, so I guess they want to jump into the studio life full-time. As much as we like to think Millennials are all hip and mobile, many of them just want a traditional work schedule.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by you&me

Results would be a pretty easy metric to start using...

This is really industry dependent. The managers view of things is also naturally slighted by what is presented to him. This is where the "Dwight" character from the original office came in. He made sure that the managers were constantly aware of his results and threw everyone else under the bus. It's obviously an exaggerated stereotype, but there's unfortunately a lot of truth to it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is really industry dependent. The managers view of things is also naturally slighted by what is presented to him. This is where the "Dwight" character from the original office came in. He made sure that the managers were constantly aware of his results and threw everyone else under the bus. It's obviously an exaggerated stereotype, but there's unfortunately a lot of truth to it.

This person exists everywhere and they are the lowest of scum. If you have a manager who likes this kind of thing, I can't think of a surer sign you need to leave your job and move somewhere better.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I have lots of staff who are always broke. Two of them drive a newer vehicle than I do, one of those two gets a new vehicle every couple of years, trades in the old one and loses equity every single time. I think his payment on a loaded F250 (gotta tow a trailer) is something like $1200/month. Almost every person eats out 2-3 times per day, buys at least 2 Timmies, several of them smoke/vape, etc. Probably $30-$50/day with after tax dollars that they could be saving. Lots of them have a new phone even though I supply them with a company phone that has unlimited minutes and 5GB of data, I don't get that at all.

I find cars are the single biggest wealth killer amongst my friend group. So many subscribe to the "you are what you drive" theory.

For example - single income family living on his professional 6 figure salary. They have 2 toddler kids and are looking to upsize to a 3 row SUV from a 5 yr old 2 row. They could muddle through with the current vehicle, but are looking at a $60K 3 row. Frankly a $40K new minivan (let alone a used) would address their needs but its not even being considered as they "just can't do it" from an image point of view.

Then there's the flippers. Lease a new car every 3-4 years, not realizing you are paying through the nose eating the depreciation on these high end German cars. But they do this to be able to afford the latest and greatest that supports their image.

To fund all of this of course, means living in the far burbs so that they can get their 2,500sq ft house (complete with the latest Jillian Harris approved designer kitchen with quartz countertops). Which means their yearly km's driven approaches 15-20k km a year meaning they need new cars more often.

It's a vicious cycle with cars and wealth.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

I find cars are the single biggest wealth killer amongst my friend group. So many subscribe to the "you are what you drive" theory.

For example - single income family living on his professional 6 figure salary. They have 2 toddler kids and are looking to upsize to a 3 row SUV from a 5 yr old 2 row. They could muddle through with the current vehicle, but are looking at a $60K 3 row. Frankly a $40K new minivan (let alone a used) would address their needs but its not even being considered as they "just can't do it" from an image point of view.

Then there's the flippers. Lease a new car every 3-4 years, not realizing you are paying through the nose eating the depreciation on these high end German cars. But they do this to be able to afford the latest and greatest that supports their image.

To fund all of this of course, means living in the far burbs so that they can get their 2,500sq ft house (complete with the latest Jillian Harris approved designer kitchen with quartz countertops). Which means their yearly km's driven approaches 15-20k km a year meaning they need new cars more often.

It's a vicious cycle with cars and wealth.

Can they afford it though? If so I don't see the problem. I trade in and get a brand new fully loaded diesel truck about every 11-14 months, and they make me money, but I still get judged over it with people scoffing at the idea

[Wormius]

I don't know why people even upgrade to a larger vehicle because of kids. Unless they're giants, kids and their seats will fit in almost any 5 seater vehicle. Both of our kids were in our little Impreza from after they were born through to growing out of the car seats. It's weird that there is this misconception that small children won't fit where adults would normally be expected to fit.

[nik-]

It seems like the root of a lot of these problems is children.

Just stop having them.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Something getting a little lost in this thread is that there are people doing well and it is okay to spend money and have fun. Just because somebody eats out, goes to movies, travels, has cool cars, has a nice house, etc. doesn't necessarily mean they're bad with money. Maybe they're on top of all their savings and are enjoying the excess. Maybe they're even being frugal relative to their income.

It's a prevailing idea in Canada, anyone with money either did something wrong to get it, or is massively in debt. Success is frowned upon.