krispyk84
New Member
Where you getting this stat from? Around 31% of boomers have bachelor degrees or higher, meaning the majority do not. But yet so many have high paying jobs with just a bachelors degree. Prolly got them well past the 60's & 70's.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.
You're generalizing here. If so many millennials want mini mansions, why are they clamouring to move to the core where properties are smaller?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.
How do you figure 'most' are downsizing?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.
http://business.financialpost.com/p...are-not-interested-in-downsizing-homes-survey
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/baby-boomers-not-yet-rushing-to-downsize-homes-1.1449691#
For those holding out, looks like they're taking advantage of an inflated and false market and exasperating the problem. How do those holding out feel that they're entitled to more than the gains they've already seen? Yeah, it'd be tough not to hold out, but it's a kin to short sellers playing an economic crash. They're exasperating the crash for their own personal gain. It's selfish behaviour if you ask me...
Their are enough houses to satisfy the demand of young families looking for homes. It's market speculation that caused the crazy spike, and yes, the fear of getting priced out is only exasperating the problem. But with anywhere between 65,000-99,000 perfectly good VACANT homes in the city, the supply has been shored up by people who are holding homes as investment assets.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.
Foreign investors = speculation, no?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.
Suburban sprawl continued to explode throughout the 80's and 90's. It wasn't until the late 90's, even early 2000's that we saw the city turn around with its condo boom.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.
I can generalize. You're different, perhaps even an outlier. But right wing political party support has a higher proportion of older voters than any other single party. Right wingers tend to want national free markets and lower taxes. Economic protection measures such as housing regulations are unpopular amongst conservative voters.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.
Fiscal conservative and social liberalism exists. Yeah the boomer generation championed those left leaning wins, but, like I mentioned above, the Conservative party in Canada has more boomer voters in it than any other party.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.
Last edited: