Steve_

I say this as someone who is used to seeing sixteen year olds run fast food restaurants, but I keep hearing that 1,000 people in Canada reach retirement age every day, (I assume this is 65) so on that basis in the near future there is going to be a real shortage of people to do pretty much anything.

And CPP/OAS/GIS doesn't add up to much (something like $18,000 because you can't get GIS if you get the full amount of CPP/OAS and that's taxed) so people of working age are doubly buggered because someone has to pay for the healthcare of people who are too old to work.

I know this is always put forward as the reason why Canada has a somewhat open immigration policy but it's been academic until now.

So could I just advise everyone to engage in more procreation, because I'm not working until I'm 80.

FlyingDutchman6666

Are you 40 or under, and not in a plush final salary scheme? Then face it, you'll HAVE to keep working until you'll start wearing diapers again

If you believe that "she'll be ok", just fire up a spreadsheet and do the math...

By the way, this isn't limited to Canada. Across the rich world, a whole generation has voted themselves benefits which society will no longer be able to afford.

BTJ

As a 23 year old working in pensions consulting this is depressingly true. A typical Defined Benefit scheme offering roughly 2/3rds of your salary as a pension after 40 years service requires a combined employee/employer contribution of around 40% of salary every year. Given that most modern defined contribution schemes only offer around 5% employer contribution, that means employees really should be contributing 35% of their salary every damn year

Steve_

But it's worse in Canada: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2054rank.html

Canada ranks 187th in birth rate, which is lower than the UK, the US, France, etc.

Look at all the problems Japan already has because of their low birth rate.

We even rank behind Finland!

FlyingDutchman6666

True, but...

Japan basically has zero immigration - and is very culturally biased against it.

Most Canadians feel that immigration is a force for good. Canada has access to an unlimited stream of highly-skilled potential immigrants.

Steve_

Kenney is on record saying that using the immigration system to make up for the low birth rate is unworkable because it's impossible to integrate that many people so quickly.

Although maybe my maths is failing me but if the birth rate is 10 per 1,000 then that's 340,000 babies each year plus 200,000+ LPRs isn't that more than 365,000 retirees? But I remember a figure of a million per year for so many years being bandied about. Or is that a calculation of how many people are needed in order to pay taxes in order to support one retiree, because obviously it's not a 1:1 ratio.

But fear not! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle6840232/

I still think that's fantasy, the backlog wasn't just about the quota, they take too long to process the applications. Kenney himself is on record saying they wanted more people in on TWPs because they were "faster to process" which led to the current débâcle. A bit too fast to process.

FlyingDutchman6666

Ok, in that case there are two possibilities:

a) state pensions/benefits/etc are cut for both existing and future pensioners

or, much more likely:

b) baby boomers use their electoral weight to force younger generations into footing the bill. Knowing that when the boomers are dead, and it's the younger generation's time to retire, there'll be little left.

Presumably, that's how democracy works

cjones

To about the same degree as most members of UKIP do...

Shard

In Europe the labour crunch has already arrived:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...oung-qualified

FlyingDutchman6666

And so it has for the UK. A youth unemployment figure of one in five places the country somewhere in the middle, slightly better than France.

Almost Canadian

I thought that entitlement to CPP was dependent upon contributions. I haven't looked into how one's contributions equate to actual income (in a "will my contributions fund my pension sense") but this is far better than a pay as you go scheme like the UK.

JonboyE

Yes, CPP is dependent on contributions. To get the maximum pension you need to contribute for 40 years at the maximum pensionable income (currently c $50k) though if you do not have the maximum you can drop several low earning years in calculating the average.

The maximum CPP pension is around $1,000 a month so it is only part of retirement income. Even for most of us who will not earn 40 years in Canada it will be useful, and it is index-linked.

Also, the CPP is fully funded from contributions that are held separate from government funds so it is something we can rely on.

The other state pension is Old Age Security. To qualify for this you have to have been resident in Canada for at least 10 years between the ages of 18 and 65. (20 years minimum if you want to collect it abroad.) Again the maximum requires 40 years of residence otherwise it is pro-rated. The maximum is only about $550 a month so is only a part of retirement income. OAS is funded from general revenues and the government has is pushing the age when you can collect it from 65 to 67.

Steve_

Well you can rely on it to be paid is what I think you meant, I know I can't live on $1,000 a month!

And if you get them together you no longer qualify for GIS as you're above the income level restriction.

No way can you live on OAS and CPP together even if you get the maximum amount (which very few people do).

Which brings me back to my original point... I don't want to work until I'm 80...

Steve_

Mmm, I'm somewhat bemused by these articles because the reason people aren't retiring is because of the economy being down, when it starts to recover enough that they feel like they can retire (or they're simply so old they have to) then the labour situation is going to turn around very rapidly.

Steve_

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07...d-year-in-row/

It's about time the govt. sponsored a bonk-a-thon.