We all faced -- and face -- our own problems. An MBA might be needed today whereas a BA would have sufficed in the 60s-70s and a high school diploma in the 40s and 50s. Things change. But nepotism was always there. Always.Ex-Montreal Girl,
I wasn't trying to single you out, but your anecdotal personal story is not enough to convince me. This day in age, it's almost required to hold more than a post secondary education to get a decent paying job. Arts degrees are worthless unless you're willing to work for next to nothing to pay your dues in order to get that 'decent paying' job. Without a technical degree in engineering, computer science, chemistry, etc. it's more difficult than ever to find a job in your studied field. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/when-a-university-degree-just-isnt-enough/article579230/
That's a big contrast from generations past, when a BA could get you a decent job with a large firm, and high school could get you into a high paying unionized government job at the TTC, or a similar government run organization. You didn't need more than high school back then to be a police officer, a fireman, a social worker, etc. etc. etc. These days, I know countless people looking to find work in those fields but are being overlooked due to nepotism, education requirements, and boomers refusing to retire. Me saying I know countless people is anecdotal yes, but here's a source in one industry that is suffering from boomer delayed retirement: http://www.macleans.ca/work/jobs/two-thirds-of-new-teachers-cant-find-full-time-work/
Are teachers, who not only have post secondary but specialized graduate degrees, entitled for wanting jobs in their field?
"It's all our fault that lemmings are now rushing into the housing market and bidding up houses into the stratosphere."
Partly. Lobbyists for the real estate industry, homeowners associations, etc. have a huge amount of political sway and have been suppressing any measures that could have tamed the market, creating a market that is favourable to rampant speculation.
"It's all our fault that government after government in the 40s, 50s, and 60s went for sprawl rather than density."
Did the boomers really need big yards for oversized bbq's and giant lush green lawns that serve no other purpose than vanity for impressing their neighbours? Governments played into the demand of the generation, and the demand of the generation played the government policy. Suburban sprawl was driven by the boomer want and need for bigger and more.
BTW: the only time a highschool education could land you a great job was before 1965.
When the TTC and Government Services ramped up their hiring blitz, you didn't need more than high school. One could make a good living from 1965-1990 on college/vocational school credentials or a liberal arts degree. Those days are LONG gone.
By the early 80s, unemployment was hitting double digits.
As bad as that was, and not to discredit that hard time, that (the lower unemployment rate) seems to be only thing we got going for us (millennials) comparing the 80's to Today https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/2012-vs-1984-young-adults-really-do-have-it-harder-today/article4105604/
PS. That article was written in 2012. Things got worse for millennials since then (housing prices are WAY higher, and many of the jobs out west that Ontarians were taking are no longer there)
You can talk about how you bought an old house and fixed it up, but many of us can't even afford crack houses to fix up these days. You can talk about high interest rates on loans, but the savings interest rates were really high back then too (rewarding those that were responsible). Todays low rates are completely offset by todays high prices, and those with money to save are lucky to get 2.6%, barely beating inflation.
The Globe article above comparing 1984 to 2012 should say enough that millennials don't have it easy. So it's hard for us to just turn over and take it. The biggest opponents of real estate protectionist measures are the homeowners who are reaping the most benefit of the big real estate gains that are hurting us millennials, and the response from these boomers tends to be "Suck it up and make some sacrifices". Many of us have and it's still no better for us. We're going to inherit an aging population that is going to put an incredible strain on the countries resources that our generation will have to pay for. It's scary to read the stats on just how unprepared many boomers are for retirement. We're gonna end up with economic stagnation, much like the situation that kept Japan standing still through the 90's and 2000's.
I'm not anti-union. In fact, I'm very far left on the political spectrum, and think unions have done a great deal to build this country. It's a fact though that a HUGE portion of the boomer population benefited from unions and government protection. Whether it be directly through their government jobs, or from the industry protecting measures the governments put in place. But the old saying goes, you're born left, you die right. As these boomers age, many tend to speak against the 'welfare' and protectionist policies that they benefited from. And I find it extremely hypocritical. With 25% of Canada to be over the age of 65 by 2035, the progressively right leaning boomer voice will only get louder, leaving us millennials without the favourable market to grow and flourish in that the boomers had. So convince yourself that boomers had it harder and that we should suck it up. It looks like our lives are shaping out to be more of an up hill battle, even though many of us may not realize or act like it yet.
Consider also the size of houses. Look at the typical East York bungalow, for example. Baby boomers grew up in those, three to four to a family. And what are they? 900-1000 sf? Now people want houses of 2000 sf....or more.... on large lot sizes. (The typical Riverdale semi is likely no more than 1600 s.f. with maybe 15 feet of frontage.) So builders are sprawling everywhere with "mini- or micro-mansions." What I'm saying is, it seems like younger families generally want larger properties. What might have been second homes for my generation and third homes for my parents are desired first homes for millennials.
It's not Baby Boomers who are driving demand. Most of them are downsizing. Sure, many are holding out for high prices. Wouldn't you? Come on be honest.
And I don't think there's rampant speculation, as you put it. People aren't buying low and selling high, or trying to. That's what speculation is. They're charging into a market for fear that it will only get harder to get in.
I do think foreign investors have something to do with it. And I don't like that people are buying condos to run hotels, i.e. airbnbs. These are killers for sure and I am all for government involvement on that score.
But I think you're wrong about sprawl. That wasn't us. That was politicians and city planners older than Boomers. The QEW was built in my mother's time, i.e. in her teens - 30s. The Gardiner was built in the 50s, as the Boomers were being born. The DVP opened in 1961. The Allen was built in the 60s, when Boomers were getting their learner's permits. And so on. So, if you build highways (and not transit), you encourage sprawl, making it easier for developers to create a city like Mississauga out of (what?) five? towns. Throw in a beefed up airport and 401 and you get the 427 and more.
The planners, pols and developers were definitely not looking at extending transit or building denser housing in highrises downtown-ish. Our condo is a rarity, finished in 1973. I can walk to Holt Renfrew (on a good day) and we have three bedrooms and an eat-in kitchen. There should have been way more like this back then. Eglinton, St. Clair etc. were ripe for the pickings. Instead, you see many of the 60s-70s towers along the DVP or on long wide lonely stretches like Don Mills Road, handy dandy for cars.
Oh, and on the subject of transit, Montreal's Metro opened in 1967, in time for Expo. Look at a map of it and how HUGE is has become in such a short time. Then add in the LRTs etc. Meanwhile, Toronto's TTC has stagnated. The Sheppard line is all but useless. And I shake my head when I see what they're talking about when they talk about a Scarborough subway. Sorry but that ain't no way to run a railroad.
But I digress.
I was born left BTW and I will likely die lefter. I am not what you describe. So thanks for the generalization. Many Boomers, women especially, are barely scraping buy on CPP and OAS. And then there are those whose kids have moved in with them or who have "lent" their kids $100K and remortgaged their future well-being to help their kids buy.
I highly doubt that that the "progressively right leaning boomer voice will only get louder." It's been loud for decades -- during which we fought for women's rights, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, equal opportunity, maternity leaves ... I can assure you that those who fought for these things aren't going to pack it in and go all Trump. It's older women mostly who are leading the resistance south of the border. You can bet that we still have life in us yet.