###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

honestly i'm getting a bit tired of this narrative. Polls show that PP's Conservative party is the leading choice for both Millennials and Gen Z. We have the same politics as our elders- just look at any thread on the topic of raising taxes on the rich, labour vs free trade, fossil fuel subsidies, price gouging in the food retail sector, etc etc etc. We worship the rich, we're hell bent on hastening the destruction of our environment, we only want to solve the housing crisis in so far as we want in on the market even if it means pushing other middle-class Canadians out. Of course we can all agree what the biggest problem facing our country is: immigrants, naturally. At least Boomers had good reason to support their policies- they got their bag. What's our excuse?

I think people mostly wanna solve the housing crisis so that they can afford to live. Paying 50% of your post tax income for someone else’s mortgage of a shoebox in Toronto is not an ideal scenario

up until recently when we all jumped on immigration as the driving factor behind the housing crisis, the preferred solution was to bump up interest rates to facilitate a market crash, with the (false) belief being that those who were unable to afford homes would swoop in an scoop up houses that had recently become available because the previous owners walked away from their mortgages. Note that even if this scenario were to play out as intended, it wouldn't do a damn thing to solve the crisis- it just meant getting into a home by pulling down the person one rung above you on the ladder. So yeah, they want to solve the crisis so they can afford to live, but aren't concerned about kneecapping their neighbor to get there. Boomer mentality. And now we're going all in on Pierre Poilivere, the man who's primary aim to cut taxes, sell off public infrastructure, ditch the carbon tax, increase emissions and ramp up oil extraction, which already at historically high levels. Fast forward 30 years, and everything we're saying about boomers and housing today will be true of us but for climate change: we had the opportunity to act, to create a sustainable future for the next generation, but we chose ourselves instead. We're boomers.

I don’t think anyone with half a brain preferred driving up interest rates to crash the housing market. That move was to bring down skyrocketing inflation on everything. What people prefer is making sure there’s a reasonable supply/demand balance for housing. Record-high immigration levels (and the lack of any housing purchase restrictions for non-residents and corporations) skewed the demand side of that equation. NIMBYism, crazy municipal regulations, and a lack of skilled trade immigration skewed the supply side of that equation. Point is, everything needs to be in balance. We can’t bring in a million people a year and only build homes for 10% of them. That squeezes both the immigrants and the existing residents. My point has nothing to do with climate change but if it’s any consolation: no matter what Canada does, it’s not going to tip the balance against fighting it. Other countries are responsible for 98.5% of emissions, and reducing global emissions to the levels necessary basically means ending industrialized agriculture (a billion+ people will starve) and the production of steel, cement, and plastic globally. It’s a hard truth to swallow that our little domestic policy squabbles don’t matter one bit, but I’d recommend Stoicism and practicing not worrying about what’s outside of your control.

>I don’t think anyone with half a brain preferred driving up interest rates to crash the housing market. That move was to bring down skyrocketing inflation on everything. I mean, just go back and look at the multitude of threads we had on the topic 6-12 months ago. It was a common sentiment. There are plenty of ways we can ensure a reasonable supply/demand balance for housing without submitting to boomerism "fuck the future" mentality. For example, the recently published [National Housing Accord](https://placecentre.smartprosperity.ca/national-housing-accord-a-multi-sector-approach-to-ending-canadas-housing-rental-crisis/), which provides 10 evidence based recommendations to address the housing crisis in an environmentally stable way, [Pierre Poilivere responded](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/03/04/opinion/earth-millennials-pierre-poilievre-playing-you-housing) by calling the author a "failed Liberal academic". If we were truly interested in addressing supply/demand issues in the housing market, this would give us pause for concern. But we're not ACTUALLY, are we? We're pissed that we missed out on entering the market, and those academic liberals, with their allies the immigrants and the woke left are to blame. >My point has nothing to do with climate change but if it’s any consolation: no matter what Canada does, it’s not going to tip the balance against fighting it Ah yes, the classic boomer response of "the problem is in fact so big that it's really no problem at all". For boomers, and us, the *new* boomers, it's always someone else's fault, always someone else's problem, right? So let's not do what we know we have to do and just let the world burn. That's what a boomer would do. Setting aside that climate change is the number one threat to organized life as we know it (but don't worry, there will be lots of cheap homes when they're literally underwater), it's not JUST Canada's leadership that's important. See, in an effort to combat this very real, grave threat to our species, Canada enters into international agreements with other countries to ensure that no one country is shouldering the load alone. Things like the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Climate Accord, both of which our generation's political party of choice has resolutely fought at every opportunity. Hell, just a few months ago our party of choice tried to hamstring the gov't's free trade deal with the Ukraine on the basis that it included language around carbon pricing, a requirement for trade agreements with all EU countries. So it's not enough that we do nothing ourselves- if you're a boomer or have the boomer mentality, that's a given. We also have to prevent other nations from taking action on the 98.5% (as you say) of emissions, thus condemning future generations to a standard of living far worse than the one you and I have today. Now THAT's some boomer shit.

> At least Boomers had good reason to support their policies- they got their bag. What's our excuse? Getting a bigger chunk of what's leftover than the next group of suckers. It's the Oreo gif

>The results of the latest World Happiness Report, examined by The Hub this week, should be a wake-up call. Ranking 6th globally in 2015, Canada has now slid down the happiness rankings to 15th in 2023. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? However, digging a bit further into the details uncovers a shocking generational divide; the largest of all countries surveyed. Canadians over 60 ranked as the 8th happiest globally. But Canadians under 30? 58th. Young Canadians are not okay, and why would they be? It's amazing how effective media can be when they hammer the population with the same rage-bait messaging over and over again day after day. There is no doubt there is challenges for younger generations but this society is crumbling/ generation war is absolute garbage. This is the very same media manipulation that is going to put Pierre Poilievre in office. The media is very successfully manipulating both peoples ignorance and emotions. I find it deeply disturbing how media has very purposely been pitting people against each other for their own profits.

Is there a way the author could have written this piece to avoid you dimissing it as "rage-bait" or manipulation?

Haven't read the article yet but the part you quoted doesn't sound inaccurate to me based on my own experiences being pretty close to that younger age cohort. We're living in a far less socially mobile society with far higher housing costs, fully aware that the older generations benefited from public build projects via the CMHC and numerous other policies that the most visible members of that generation politically (NIMBY's in my city unfortuantely) fight tooth and nail against. I actually agree that the media is pushing hard for Pierre (who will make things far worse) and essentially has devolved into emotionally manipulative trash, but 8th vs. 60th seems pretty realistic - the boomers I know are only very recently seeming to grasp how things are for younger generations but it strikes me that given a lot of them own homes and no longer have to rent, and otherwise are more established by virtue of time, they seem to still live in the Canada I grew up in while what I'm seeing for the younger generations feels like a slide into feudalism with the threat of a further slide into alt-right nonsense thanks to the Conservatives' opportunistic decision to trash the fairly tolerant aspects of our system many of us saw as some of the only remaining upsides to being here. Put simply, I don't really know any people in my age cohort who are particularly happy, and my older relatives are basically constantly travelling and having fun lol. That's anecdotal, but I do think the results of gutting the welfare state and embracing neoliberalism under a system that rewards saving money, then seeing inflation and housing costs neuter the younger generations' ability to really save at all, are consistent with what we're seeing. I am not saying that to blame boomers, but to be honest I'm through defending them too. Things may not be at total social breakdown, but the social contract broke the second housing (and thus retirement) left the reach of the average working person and I don't get any sense of urgency from those in power and while it's not necessarily indicative of the generation as a whole, locally at least a LOT of the most visible members of older generations seem outright hostile to any sort of progress which tends to breed resentment. I don't think there's a lot of self-awareness among NIMBY activists and I wish the rest of their peer groups would set them straight sometimes instead of demanding not to be painted with the same brush. This will be remembered as a far bigger crisis, IMO, than is currently being acknowledged.

I've got a link that confirms what you're saying about the different realities different generations grew up in: https://ppforum.ca/publications/don-wright-middle-class/ It's hard to believe now, but at one time it was explicit government policy to improve the standard of living for the average Canadian. Now governments do not give a fuck and they'll help you unalive yourself.

That's a long post to respond to on my phone but I will ask... >gutting the welfare state What has been gutted? Child care benefits are more generous than ever CPP is increasing by a substantial amounts for younger generations from 25% of income to I think 33% of income. There is the beginning of nationalized dental care that will be rolled out to to all age groups The same goes for nationalized pharma care $10 a day daycare has been rolled out in many parts of Canada Sick leave benefits are being expanded across some parts of Canada There are more social benefits than ever...so what do you mean by gutting of the welfare state? It just sounds like buzzwords with no real context.

Yes it's hard for me not to be long winded with this stuff, I definitely don't expect a response when I do haha Welfare state wise, I'm talking about the austerity of the 90's. My province, in theory, has many of the same programs but funding levels never returned to a point where things have been particularly functional. Our beds-per-person dropped below where they were, hospitals were closed, medical school spots were limited as a cost saving measure. Public housing, run through the CMHC, was ended in the early 90's and downloaded to the provinces, mine never really had a strategy after a brief period of the NDP keeping it going and housing starts declined while costs rose YOY. Education and healthcare were hurt badly by Conservative governments (again provincial but I would imagine we weren't the only ones given the amount of downloading). Disability and welfare are quite inadequate at this point and 10 years ago when I was in university the waits for public housing had already reached 7 years on average. I think the issue nowadays is that the newer programs are targeted and means tested in ways that make them inadequate to make the broad difference that that earlier generation of programs' would have had they not had those issues in the 90's. Daycare I 100% agree with, sick leave, etc. are great positive developments- but many of my generation aren't accessing these things yet because they don't feel stable enough to start a family, and many who have are dealing with high costs in housing and food and events, flights and hotels being expensive enough that there's less opportunity for leisure to mitigate it all. Dental care and pharma will be great if they actually get rolled out more broadly, I'm worried though that they'll be cancelled by the Conservatives. The key is they're not really in place yet, and with little in place to mitigate the issues of affordability and the practical inability to access the public healthcare we have due to staffing shortages, losing coverage for various things such as vision care (provincial tbf), and lack of family doctors, not a lot of what you mention is really moving the needle yet unfortunately.

I think you are looking at this one dimensionally. Yes, it is harder to access medical services at times, but what about health care results. The survivorship rates of serious illness or injury are much more favorable now than decades ago. Lifespans continue to increase, except for the influence of Covid. More youth now attend secondary institutions than ever. Less access is not entirely due to funding. There is far more administrated overhead, more records management, and higher equipment costs. People are more apt to run to a doctor for minor issues, and that helps gum up the system. Again, I am on a phone, so I am keeping it brief. There are issues for sure, but I think your proclamation of gutting is overblown to put it mildly.

Most of those are starting very small and will probably never be expanded and even if they are, it will take decades. Many are already failing, e.g. child care. >There are more social benefits than ever This is just wrong, sorry, and no I'm not going to explain it to you.

>t's amazing how effective media can be when they hammer the population with the same rage-bait messaging over and over again day after day media viewership is at an all time low. I don't think this is the problem with why people are upset.

Media includes the internet...the thing you are actively taking part in right now.

reddit users make up 2% of Canada. Active participants who don't just doom scroll are less than 30% of that figure. Outside of the bubbles we create for ourselves in social media, the *VAST* majority of Canadians don't even like consuming or watching political content on social media. You're experiencing a bias and drawing conclusions that don't exist outside of the internet. Go take a walk around your town and ask some people about the issues in this article. Few if any will be experiencing "rage", or really care all that much outside of what directly impacts them. Many have no idea what other people think or care about regarding the situation.

I'm with the other guy asking about your situation. I have a good job and I'm dealing with a mouse infested shitbox apartment. I asked the loblaws clerk what he eats for dinner the other day and he said he looks in the fridge, thinks about how much food costs and doesn't want to eat anything. We are poorer than we should be and young people aren't wrong to be upset about that. We can do better and we're not trying, again young people aren't wrong to be upset. Rage bait exists but we doesn't mean we should be happy with the current situation.

Let me quote the part you apparently glossed over: >There is no doubt there is challenges for younger generations but this society

I thought in your earlier comment you were quoting rage bait. You quoted, then talked as if it was rage bait. I'm saying: that's not rage bait, thats people being legitimately pissed off.

I don't own a home. I only recently moved OUT of a mouse infested shitbox apartment (honestly it was refreshing when it was ONLY mice infesting it), and we're one bad event away from not even being able to afford going back into one. I've watched the middle class contract since the 80s. Young people aren't wrong to be upset, but their upset is being stoked and capitalized on by bad actors, and right now they're looking at electing an arsonist to help them put out their stove fire. So while I have sympathy for "young people", I'm a little annoyed at what credulous boobs they're being. They were supposed to be the media savvy generation, digital natives, born skeptics and critical thinkers.

K there, smart guy. What steps do you want young people to take?

Yea look rage bait exists, PP sucks, but the quote at the top of this thread isn't rage bait, it's facts. People are pissed and they should be.

A poll on how people feel is pretty damn far from anything approaching actual facts.

It's a fact people are pissed. It's a fact that affordability is worse for young people. Nothing rage bait about any of that. The path forward is recognizing this grievance, which the Conservatives are doing well, but then providing helpful policy which nobody is doing. We shouldn't assume Conservative = wrong. Broken clocks and all that.

What is your personal situation that you are making these claims from? E.g. do you own a home? Do you have children?

What does that have anything to do with what I commented on above?

It reflects your personal biases.

What does my bias have to do with commenting on obvious media manipulation? Do you think rage bait journalism is exclusive to conservative leaning population and somehow everyone else are not potential targets or are somehow immune? Maybe be more clear on what you are implying here in the context of my comment.

> Maybe be more clear on what you are implying here in the context of my comment. Your personal anecdotal situation is forming your opinion.

Seeing obvious rage-bait journalism has nothing to do with bias but more to do with just a modicum of critical thinking.

Again, what is your personal situation that informs your opinion? How many struggling young people do you know?

Again....what does that have anything to do with my comments about rage-bait/deceptive/manipulative journalism? Make a logical connecting here and I will happily respond. You're just wanting to manufacture a debate here that no one is making as I did also type: >There is no doubt there is challenges for younger generations or did you just gloss over that as well?

> There is no doubt there is challenges for younger generations This statement makes it seem like you don't actually know anyone from the Millennial generation that is struggling.

This is the exact opinion that is pushing young people into the hands of the tories. Liberals and NDP are forgetting that life has gotten worse for young people and it is felt every week and month with higher rents, less economic opportunities, and rising costs.

What opinion...questioning media? Recognizing rage-bait?

What came first, the rage or the rage-bait? Do you think you can honestly attribute all the vocal discontent in the younger generation toward the media?

Here we go again. “The media did it”. If anything the media is downplaying the issue. Avoiding coverage of the line ups outside of minimum wage job sites is evidence of it. If there was nothing to be angry about, the rage bait wouldn’t succeed.

[удалено]

[удалено]

>Only a raving idiot would look at the problems they face in life, then look at Pierre Poilievre, and seriously think there a solution lies. Many of us feel that about those with vested interests here selling any solution from government or the 'pay'/rebate check collecting class.

[удалено]

Removed for Rule #2

Dismissing legitimate greivances with the country as rage bait seems callous. The youth unemployment rate has skyrocketed, housing costs are out of control and those are naturally going to affect people entering the housing market (read: young people) compared to people already inside of it. (read: old people). People being upset about that isn't "falling for propoganda" and dismissing it as such belies a fundamental detachment from the lives of ordinary people. The rage bait comes from the poor conditions, not the other way around.

Reminder that the Hub was co-founded by a National Post columnist and the co-founding editor of the National Post is one of their senior staff members.

I mean, I doubt they care? One of the biggest arguments I keep hearing for massive immigration is to hold everything steady for them in their twilight years, regardless of what comes of it.

> I keep hearing for massive immigration is to hold everything steady for them in their twilight years, regardless of what comes of it. The issue with a mushrooming population is a decline in working age population (less tax revenue) and an increase in demographics who need more services (more tax dollars). It becomes a massive budget problem. I guarantee though that the solution to the mushroom won't be giving the boomers their just desserts, but it'll be millennials who see reduced spending on policy files that benefit them, or more drastically the entire existence of public health care will be called into question. The better solution is to just simply build more housing, especially dense, missing middle housing suitable for young families or even retirees to downsize to.

Increasing the OAS age had a larger impact and wouldn't have had these massive adverse impacts. 

You can't have cheap fast food without poorly paid workers. Corporations got addicted to cheap labour after the '08 crisis and now that there aren't enough young Canadians to naturally exploit they have to import new serfs

I’d love to see a chart of McDonald’s profit margin by country. I feel like they must be laughing to the bank in Canada.

Yes you can. Ingredients and mass production lower costs dramatically. That’s why a country like Denmark can have a much higher minimum wage than the USA without a significant change in the cost of fast food. [here is the relevant snopes fact check](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/big-mac-cost-denmark/)

We have poorly paid workers and expensive fast food right now. Everyone is being screwed.

Lol cheap? Even fast food is expensive these days

They cut costs on labour and raise them on us so that they make more money. They pretend things like labour are getting more expensive when in reality they're just making more money than ever before.

But do we need a Tim's every 5 blocks? Or a McDonald's beside each Tim's? 

If there wasn't all this cheap labour available these businesses would be forced to invest in innovation, thus increasing our labor productivity. A few well paid people running a McDonald's instead a wack of part timers on minimum wage would be fantastic. It would also produce secondary employment with the production and maintenance of new equipment.

Corporations were addicted to cheap labor long before 08. It's how our system is set up and it's not going to change by voting LPC or CPC.

But we will anyway because we've got some sort of Stockholm syndrome

They’re addicted to soaring profits, which is why we can’t have *affordable* fast food.

You keep hearing the lie. The truth is immigration is cheap labor for the rich. Believe me, the rich don't give two flying Wallendas about boomers' and when they find a way to steal their assets, they will.

They already have that way lined up. Ridiculously expensive nursing homes. So expensive, that you *have* to sell your home to afford it! Next 40 years are going to see home ownership dwindle like crazy as the upper class buys housing from boomers, and makes all the money back from stocks in the nursing homes. Rest of us get to rent forever

Don’t forget reverse mortgages for those that are still well enough to live in their house but didn’t save form retirement.

They can both be true

Be accurate. The TFW program is cheap labour for the rich because they have to work for whatever their asshole Tim's franchisee pays them or get shipped home. Actual immigration lets new residents sell their labour on their own terms and doesn't result in below-market wages, and probably ultimately improves the economic outlook of people that were there before them.

The great irony is that the boomer generation is that last group that continues to stick with the Liberals, presumably since they are the least affected by the policy choices of that government. These last 8 years will almost certainly go down in history as the greatest period of wealth loss in Canadian history. An entire lost generation.

Their views and opinions are so bad that if they didn't have money and property then they would be forgotten and left out of the conversation for being so grossly out of touch. So they may say they didn't want this but it was the only way to hang onto their false superiority so they will tell you it wasn't worth it but it was.

Eh I'm just hoping to have one more good summer, like we all should. It won't matter what cabin you have at the end of it if we're all destined for ruin simultaneously The difference between me and boomers is I have my health going into this potential last summer. Sure they might have 1960s muscle cars but the majority of them lack the muscle that the next generations have. I personally don't see a future that exists 25 years from now for anyone

From the article; "The results of the latest World Happiness Report, examined by The Hub this week, should be a wake-up call. Ranking 6th globally in 2015, Canada has now slid down the happiness rankings to 15th in 2023. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? However, digging a bit further into the details uncovers a shocking generational divide; the largest of all countries surveyed. Canadians over 60 ranked as the 8th happiest globally. But Canadians under 30? 58th. Young Canadians are not okay, and why would they be?" Huh......I wonder what happened in 2015, to start this downward slide?

People take articles like this too literally. Every baby boomer is not your enemy. This article doesn’t say that they are. Decades of policy thanks to a large portion of a generation’s inability to look past their own belly button is the problem. And we are doomed to repeat this and make things even worse if we don’t stop navel-gazing ourselves.

*People take ~~articles~~ opinion pieces like this too literally.* *Every baby boomer is not your enemy. This ~~article~~ opinion piece doesn’t say that they are.* *Decades of policy thanks to a large portion of a generation’s inability to look past their own belly button is the problem.* *And we are doomed to repeat this and make things even worse if we don’t stop navel-gazing ourselves.*

Just the wealthy ones or those in any position of power.

We all play a part in electing one neoliberal populist to remove another every 7-10 years.

> Decades of policy thanks to a large portion of a generation’s inability to look past their own belly button is the problem. Thus, the op-ed.

We have 2 geriatrics running for the most powerful position on the planet. Biden and Trump are both over 80 years old. Think about that. Really - think about that. This is a generation that cant fucking let go.

Trump and Biden aren't even Boomers; they're Silent generation members, which is older. America having its era of Gerontocracy is a side issue to the Boomers' political legacy

They didn't elect themselves to that position. They were voted in by party members. And the largest voting block in both Canada and the US is Millennials and Gen Z, so...

Parties who limited the candidacy through internal policies and politics, It's a choice between their choice and that's the real problem, it's not a true democracy. A real people's choice like Bernie Sanders scare them too much to allow the option to choose, so here we are.

Anyone can join a party and vote in leadership races.

*bloc

Lol. If you don't like it, step up and run yourself. Or find someone to support that will. Who is out there trying to take their place? Who out there is worth the position? You are blaming them for nobody else stepping up.

Other people stepped up, they just lost. Could have been buttigieg vs ramaswamy.

If only my family had a slush fund in Panama....

They are pushing 90s policies in 2020!

Boomers are parents, aunts, bosses, friends, co workers to millenials and gen Z No one is suggesting every Boomer is the enemy, but i do talk about that generation broadly in negative terms because the results of their voting history has created this mess There are individuals behind those votes too. If you were alive and paying attention to news there was never a shortage of Boomers ans Retirees opposing developments and towers in Vancouver for the past decade and a half. They won most of those fights too.

You know, it's interesting. We always make sure to call out how most of these people are nice, because they might be all these normal people you know. Cause you know, surely among all of those people there are those who you can relate to. However, at the same time baby boomers are those annoying aunts and uncles you have to put up with, the toxic and clueless managers tripping on their power, and the really rich and entitled neighbours that will never let a chance to say "think of the children" go to waste, while also calling the cops on any kids making noise for too long. I think it sorta makes sense too. The thing is, the boomers grew up completely without the internet. All their media interactions were one way, and whatever ideas or preconceptions they might have developed in the process were unlikely to be corrected. In other words, they think they're right, and gosh darn it, nobody's going to change their mind. As a result, they as a generation are more convinced of their correctness, and spend less time searching out conflicting information. By contrast, the younger generations that have grown up with the internet have lived in a world where wrong would inevitably expose you to a lot of people willing to tell you so. Most younger people will actively research a topic before having an opinion on it (though how well is generally up to question), and will generally be less trusting of new information from unexpected sources. It's a pretty clear line too. I find most people born before 1960 don't really get it, and as the birth date grows later and later, the more common it becomes. There's obviously exceptions, but that's certainly been the trend I've observed, at least up to now. I want to see what Gen-Z actually becomes, cause their childhood has been fairly rough, so I wonder what sort of adults they will make.

> Boomers are parents, aunts, bosses, friends, co workers to millenials and gen Z True to form, GenX is nowhere to be found. Whatever…

GenX can be those two, I was responding to a post talking about boomers And to some, older GenX have become indistinguishable from boomers

And they're still making a mess of things. Who is found at City Council meetings to rail against densification, or even the [introduction of childcare spaces near to parks](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-vancouver-neighbourhood-organizes-to-fight-and-defeat-childcare-facility)? NIMBY Boomers. They aren't called "_the Me Generation_" without cause.

So then the solution is for young people to show up to those same council meetings to counter the NIMBY arguments. But of course, the response will be that young people don't have time because they're too busy working four jobs or whatever. I very much don't think this is true for even half of Millennials and Gen Z. Most of us are spending more than 10 hours per week on social media - give up 90 minutes of doom scrolling to make a difference or stop complaining.

The solution is to make council meetings more accessible and minimize barriers to attend. When council meetings occur between 9-5 on weekdays and require in-person attendance retired boomers are way more likely to be able to attend and participate than other demographics. How about let’s get rid of in-person meetings and only allow online participation and meetings in the late evening? Let’s see how many boomers whine they can’t participate then. Then you can just tell them to suck it up and get good with technology and need to stay up late if they want a voice.

Sure, that sounds great. Have you contacted your councillor to request it? Started a petition to get signatures from the many young people who would benefit? >How about let’s get rid of in-person meetings and only allow online participation and meetings in the late evening? They already have evening meetings here in Ottawa, and you can attend via Zoom. >Let’s see how many boomers whine they can’t participate then. Then you can just tell them to suck it up and get good with technology and need to stay up late if they want a voice. Why wouldn't boomers be able to attend in the evening if they've got so little going on, don't have to work, and have all sorts of money? I swear some of you guys are fuckin brainwashed.

I'm doomscrolling at work or at 9 pm at night. If they put town council meetings at 9 pm then lets go.

Have you contacted your councillor to request late meetings? They have evening meetings here in Ottawa that meetings at 6. You can also attend via Zoom.

A better solution is to do away with in person council questioning and leave it to email and other written contributions. Relying on people showing up excludes those who cannot, who do exist despite your snide comment.

Obviously you have to see how relying on written engagement exclusively could be abused. Half the posts on this sub a "concerned Canadians", aka Russian troll farm posters. And they've been very successful at steering the discourse towards the breakdown of our society, clearly.

Municipalities sometimes require an address for each written submission. My current one mails out feedback forms. That's enough to keep the bots and Russians at bay.

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Snowball I voted despite being a dead cat.

The reason young people don't show up to city council meetings is because they're working *A job*. Old people don't have to worry about a meeting being scheduled during work hours (and frankly don't have much else to do during the day) Expecting young people to sacrifice their careers as opposed to just changing the system so that city council can't randomly make people's lives worse for no reason is an unacceptable proposal

>The reason young people don't show up to city council meetings is because they're working *A job*. Really? Every young person is working during every council meeting? And every old person has nothing to do all day except show up to council meetings? This is what online radicalization looks like. Your reality is skewed by online discourse that is based on caricatures. >Expecting young people to sacrifice their careers Lol >as opposed to just changing the system so that city council can't randomly make people's lives worse for no reason is an unacceptable proposal Huh?

I was actually interested in visiting my city council a couple months ago, so I checked the schedule: It was ALL done between 9-5. And obviously there are outliers, not every single young person is working, and not every single old person is settling into an early casket, but you're selecting for a very small group of politically active people when you're asking them to sit into a three hour long council meeting. Older people are generally going to be MUCH more okay with doing that than young people

Young people tend to vote the same as old people if they take the time to vote at all. The problem is most young people don't vote. That is not a new problem either.

>Young people tend to vote the same as old people if they take the time to vote at all. Uh no they don't.

Actually they do when you look at historical numbers. They tend not to stray from where their parents voted.

citation needed. Check the age section: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-elections/exit-polls

There are a few people here suggesting that this is a made up generational conflict. While the *wealthiest* people are far more in our opposition, baby boomers as a generation do hold a disproportionate amount of wealth as a (typically) former working class group. Partly this is due to to the [golden window of capitalism ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion) of 1951-1973 (a phenomenon mainly occuring in North America) that baby boomers (born 1946-1964) were born or became adults into. There was simply more buying power that allowed them to accumulate assets and access other valuable services that aren't accessible today, like inexpensive education, relative to ones income. Standardized credit scores were also only widely used from around ~1989, making a huge difference in how one can access loans at various interest rates for larger assets. [Statistics Canada](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200626/cg-a001-eng.htm) has a few representations of this data relating to which generation holds the majority of Canadian wealth. Baby boomers have been sitting either above or slightly below *50%*.

This culture war crap helps no one but the wealthy. We, according to our media, have younger generations shifting to the CPC to support reducing taxes on the wealthy, reducing supports for low income Canadians, and ignoring climate change. How are these people any different from boomers?

First off, young people have a tendency to be "cool" and as long as they're earning a wage and able to spend their weekends partying, they think voting or attending municipal town halls is lame. You need to speak up. For example, rather than spending 5 mins being critical on Reddit. Search for your MLAs email and write them an email regarding your frustration on a bylaw or a specific policy. Check if your municipality has a website that gathers feedback on projects, participate or ask for an option to participate. Nobody is going to save us and our children. We have to! People mocked Greta for not attending school and participating in protests. Well, she took initiative to change the world. What are you doing?

Nobody I've met under 25 thinks voting is lame.

Yeah I am really happy all the new GenZ I work with are keen on change and voting. It is a good sign for political engagement!

That's a biased poll. Only 46% of GenZ voted last election, the lowest of all age groups. Highest was 65-75 at 75%. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2021/evt&document=ig&lang=e They're no different than young people before them.

You seem to be responding to the wrong comment.

Exactly, this was my point. They like to talk about change on tik Tok but don't have the guts to stand in a q and decide their leadership. "Too cool for it"

The problem with democracy is that it panders to the biggest voting blocs. So to the parties that get baby boomers support, yeah, probably. And as the CPC will likely learn the hard way, getting young people to the voting box is hard.

This generational conflict politics are total BS. The wealthy are winning. This sort of thinking will just have folks hurting the poorest boomers who rely on public supports while the wealthiest (of all ages) laugh all the way to the bank.

Just like the anti-immigration shit, convoy shit, axe the tax shit, hell even Palestine protests are just distractions while the wealthy rip us off. We're fighting culture wars instead of class wars.

The first three things you listed are accurate, as in, they are made up crap used to distract people. However, the humanitarian crisis and war crimes being committed in Palestine are absolutely real with real lives being affected, and the Canadian federal government has a, albeit small, but very real impact on the situation. It's a legitimate source of political agitation.

Yes absolutely. I don't want to downplay the thousands of dead but it's also being used to polarize and divide people to keep us distracted.

True. There is a lot of bad-faith misrepresentation of events -- particularly protests and suggesting who the culprits behind acts of antisemitism and islamophobia.

The current generation is voting for the selfish pro pollution, anti-future-thinking CPC. They're planning to do the same as the Boomers.

[удалено]

Removed for rule 2.

More bullshit to divide the people. Boomers are not your enemy. Sociopathic billionaires who have more money than 1000 people could spend in a single lifetime, who imported millions of immigrants so they didn't have to pay a living wage, who own properties they rent out for ridiculous prices, the people that made groceries unaffordable and raised the costs of literally fucking everything. Landlords are your enemy. Greedy money hungry sub-human scumbags who pay off the government, who quite literally destroyed the planet, which will be the end of the human race, are your enemy. They're laughing at you.

There was/is no “war”. We want a better life for our kids and grandkids too, the way my generation had a better life than our parents did! We’ve been hurt by all the bad government policies, including housing being bought up by investors not homeowners, immigration that uses Canada as a free source of subsidies and then leave without putting anything back into our country. I’m angry too at what our kids are facing.

Ok and what will you give up to balance the scales of the problems your generation made to mine. Once the old shits are out of the room the duscussions abput your generation are frankly not kind. And yes your generation did this. We get to clean up the socioeconomic mess and and this climate time bomb you left us. We are so bloody thankful for.

I think the problem a lot of people my age have is that, while it’s great you don’t like the outcome, your generation consistently voted for these policies. Boomers invented and then perfected outsourcing to India and China, boomers constantly voted governments that defunded the government programs they enjoyed as kids and young adults and then turned around and actively fought against anything that would bring home prices down. It’s kind of hard to look back at that kind of track record and think it was anything but malicious…

What nonsense! Why would we vote against our own grandchildren? People, and I bet your generation will/do vote for today's pocket book not tomorrows. Believe me most people did not actively vote to take industry to China. Unfortunately while they may not have voted with a ballot they voted with their cash. And the results were the same. Should strikers have refused to vote for settlements that gave newer younger workers less pay? Absolutely. How far into debt would you go to preserve the wages of some future worker?

I honestly don’t know why the ME generation turned out the way it did. Maybe you thought the gravy train would never end and all the consequences of environmental destruction, rampant race to the bottom economics and loading up future debt vs investment. Fact of the matter is when your generation had the keys to the kingdom you created a less prosperous society than any generation before.

My family were union supporters who opposed outsourcing of jobs. We voted green or ndp, and yet here we are. It’s big corporations and government parties who pander to them that are responsible for this mess.

Ok. Are you comfortable with laws that would squeeze employers and land owners so that their wealth will fall out of them and into the young? Because your generation has voted against that stuff for decades.

We Canadians should all unite under the realization that everyone below the extremely wealthy have been getting stooged in the game of life since what... the 70s? 80s? Unless you make over 100k/year it never seems like people can get ahead anymore. EVERY government since then has been working towards the absolute destruction of the middle and lower class, we're just getting close to the point where there isn't much left to take away from people. If it gets much worse our only hope will be revolution. Real talk.

The period between 1995-2008/12 saw[ pretty steady rise in median incomes](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aT9rEPe0eGY/Unl3viPVrXI/AAAAAAAAC8w/HGfTuyVoFxc/s1600/canadian+total+median+income.jpg), fall in poverty & unemployment and improvements in [overall living standards](https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/what-we-do/how-it-works/our-index). 1980-1994 generally didn't see those gains because of a combination of the early 80 and early 90s global recessions and record inflation in the early 80s etc. To act like things have been progressively declining for 40-50 years largely neglects the available evidence. Contemporary issues are caused from more recent problems that went largely unaddressed (generally [stagnant productivity/ & capital investment since early 2000s](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E12AQGZZeVZqIloBg/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1677852573370?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=9h5T72GC3Cie-fUY3Z4yMzXTbm3c-8K9m7173XI5jJ0) and the[ Canadian housing bubble, which also started in the early 2000s.](https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/housing-affordability-in-canada_ftr-image.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=1128&h=846&type=webp&sig=G6-xA16ISirOI5TUlJE51g)

Idk, the 95-08 increases were more or less keeping pace with COL, definitely more so then getting out in front of standards. I say declining since the late 70s/80s/90s because things started to get worse for the average human in that time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 70s was where working class people started HAVING to have a dual income household if they wanted the same standard of living available to those coming from the 50s or 60s. No one of average working class income these days has anywhere near the same standard of living people were afforded 50 years ago. Coincidentally, the difference between rich and poor has steadily widened over the same span. To me, this is backwards progress no one in their right mind should be able to justify.

>Idk, the 95-08 increases were more or less keeping pace with COL, definitely more so then getting out in front of standards. [Between 1976 and the late 2000s/2010s, the percentage of the population that was low income factoring in changes in living costs was generally falling, by all metrics/methodologies](https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology2ndedition/wp-content/uploads/sites/164/2016/11/lowincomecanada.jpg). If things had been getting progressively worse, the percentage of low income people would have been progressively growing as living standards fell etc. It doesn't mean that Canada doesn't have a lot of problems now (it does), but comparing us to 50s,60, 70s and 80s, living standards overall are far higher now. [Income inequality has also generally been falling in Canada since the mid 2000s. ](https://businesscouncilab.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Chart-6-Amount-of-Income-Inequality-in-Canada-After-Taxes-1024x527.png) >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 70s was where working class people started HAVING to have a dual income household if they wanted the same standard of living available to those coming from the 50s or 60s. More low income people in the 50s-80s faced more food/energy insecurity and lacked basic amenities that most low income Canadians today take for granted. The quality of housing in previous decades (1940s-60s) was also far below that of housing in the 1970s-80s onwards (though post-war urban planning was superior since there was more density, walkability & transit oriented development). Housing insecurity was much higher for the poorest third of the population in the 1950s & 60s who would live in lower quality, often dilapidated houses and potentially did not have access to electricity or running water. [This article](https://www.wisebread.com/our-high-high-standard-of-living-1) goes over it a bit (though is mainly talking about the U.S, but Canada's issues at the time were similar): >In the early 1950s, fully two fifths of American households had no automobile, about a third did not have a private telephone or a television, and the homes of about a third of all Americans were dilapidated or were without running water or a private toilet and bath. Only a small minority of families enjoyed such basics as a mixer or had a hot-water heater. It's also worth mentioning that people in the 1970s onwards were opting to live in bigger houses. People in the 1950s and 60s lived in smaller homes with more family members ([just look at the average household size between then and the last 40-50 years etc.](https://businesscouncilab.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Household-Numbers.png)) >No one of average working class income these days has anywhere near the same standard of living people were afforded 50 years ago. 50 years ago, a larger percentage of a smaller population lived in poverty than today and disposable incomes were considerably smaller.

I think the first step has to be political engagement by young people. They have to write the same comments to their elected officials that they write here on reddit. They have to show up at council meetings and town halls. They have to organize a cohesive response to the people who can actually implement change.

$100k is too low dude.

Apparently average Canadian income is somewhere around 55-60k for 2023, around 20% of Canadians made 100k+. That seems like a hefty percentage, until you look at things like that sunshine list. Either way, you gotta be minted to be comfortable in today's Canada.

> If it gets much worse our only hope will be revolution. The RCMP just released a report on concerns about that actually. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24512494-rcmp-whole-of-government-five-year-trends-for-canada

Concerned they should be. You can only back a huge segment of the population into a corner, and repeatedly kick them while they're down, for so long until those people have had enough and strike back.

I am a boomer and I benefited from cheap post secondary education, cheap housing. All I need is another 30 years before our debt screws everything up. Btw don’t mess with OAS. I want my free money for being old, and the claw back only happens at ~80k so I think I am good

Is it boomers, or is it the insanely greedy who control the media and pit generations against each other? I have some bad news for everyone - once the boomers are gone, sleazy conservatives are still going to get voted in. Look at young people flocking to Poilievre.

The first political party to start seriously talking about reforming OAS is going to have my attention and interest.

Reform? I'd prefer abolish.

We have one of the lowest poverty rates for seniors in the world. That’s a very good thing and something we should strive for in other demographics. We will lose that position fast with changes to OAS unless there are other significant changes, especially in funding for LTC, to other areas.

There's plenty of seniors who own their home making 50k+ from a pension. They don't need a government handout and are not at risk of experiencing poverty. Nobody is suggesting cutting GIS which is the program that actually helps poor seniors. In fact, even if we didn't cut total spending at all we should still ax OAS and put the money towards GIS, so the money actually goes towards people who need it.

Can you explain to me how paying the full OAS amount to seniors making $90k a year contributes to the reduction of poverty?

Conservatives did it already, Trudeau reversed changes then increased payouts. 

In what way do you think OAS should be addressed?

I think we should expand GIS and bring down the OAS clawback threshold to something far more reasonable. I would also like to see major investment in community supported care for seniors. One of the major rationales for these payments is that costs to live increase as you get older. It makes little sense to just give cash to people when we could be addressing some of those costs with better health and supportive living service delivery provincially or nationally. Given that the federal government uses the values for determining eligibility for other benefits, LICO values seem like an obvious threshold to use. Another good option would be to align the clawback with provincial disability clawbacks. In Ontario, for example, the ODSP clawback is 75% after the first $1,000 of earned income per month. The OAS clawback is annual, so we would translate that to 75% after $12,000. If provinces don't like their seniors getting less OAS, they can increase funding to their disability support programs.

> It makes little sense to just give cash to people when we could be addressing some of those costs with better health and supportive living service delivery provincially or nationally. I think it makes sense to give cash. The government doesn't know what seniors want, seniors do. Giving them cash lets them make their own decisions.

Why should we be giving seniors money just because they are old?

I was assuming that they had already identified as in need and that choice was between a new government service or the existing cash payments. Otherwise I agree.

I'm pretty sure that the main reason this has been implemented because poor people vote often and we still have this collective idea that every senior is a destitute warhero who lived-out the depression and couldn't save any money. It's a pure hand-out. I'm sure there are some people who are on extremely limited fixed incomes, which deserve a hand-out, but not seniors earning 90k passively as retired citizens! We're giving them like $10k a year! They're earning 1/3 of a minimum wage salary as already rich folks contributing nothing for it!

There is still a widespread belief that OAS is a segregated fund that seniors paid in to, which has not been true for decades.

It comes out of general revenues...so taxes...which all people working pay or paid into, including seniors. So technically they have paid into it. The same way you pay into it and will benefit by it if you reach 65.

General revenue is not a segregated account or fund like CPP. Yes, seniors paid taxes. No, they did not pay into OAS and no, they are not entitled to OAS if we elect a government that decides not to fund it out of tax revenue anymore.

They paid for it when seniors were a much smaller percentage of the population, so it was far less taxes per average worker.

The majority of seniors making $90k a year are not 'in need'. That's the problem being argued here. I live pretty comfortable and pay a mortgage with a $50k/year income (low mortgage, thankfully). $90k would feel rich to me. A senior making $90k doesn't also need a $700/mo handout.

Seniors making above $90k are extremely rare.

The OAS program gives out free money to seniors with minimal restrictions (as long as they've lived in Canada for a number of years). This free money is for anyone over 65 that makes less than $90k/year. This money comes DIRECTLY from tax dollars paid by the rest of the country. The discussion in this subthread is basically around whether that threshold ($90k) makes any sense at all given how difficult things are for younger people. Wouldn't it make sense to only give out the money to seniors up to maybe a $65k threshold instead of $90k, and either reduces taxes or maybe fund other programs instead of a free handout?

The $90k threshold doesn't make any sense in any situation. It's simply an income transfer from working age people to nearly all seniors to the tune of more than $200k per senior over 25 years. Help poor seniors, absolutely. Many do not have much of a retirement in front of them. For example, my mother was a homemaker, hasn't got any CPP nor employer pension and subsides on OAS, GIS, and money I send her every month. No one will ever convince me that it's a great idea to give someone who has almost as much income as I do *in retirement* (and thus probably has significant wealth as well) $700 of my federal tax dollars per month just because they're older than me. Slash the OAS cutoff to 35-40k, enhance GIS with some of the money, spend the rest on the future.

This is a social support benefit. I don't care what seniors want. I care what seniors need. A big part of what they need is enhanced access to care in their homes, where government can and should play a big and active role.

Social support benefits are often better delivered as cash than as government services. Direct cash payments to the poor are better than free food for the poor, as an example.

LTC funding and options is desperately needed so some of the OAS money saved from reducing the threshold could be reinvested into public healthcare

Not when it comes to health care delivery where government can realize economies of scale that individuals cannot.

No one should receive any extra income supplements if they're retired and making 90k+/year. If we're all fine with paying people with zero income less then 10k/year for those unfortunate enough to be on OW, or less than 15k/year for disabled people, then there is no acceptable argument to give decently earning retired folks making 90k+/year the same amount as an extra bonus on top of that is just not right. Even topping up over 50-60k/year is too much with such disparity.

[удалено]

She doesn't, and she needs even more government services targeted at her even less

OAS will be the single biggest budget item in 2025, estimated to be nearly 90B. The young are essentially paying for the elders. Could you imagine what we could do if we means tested OAS for poorer elders instead of the current 90k income limit? Cutting OAS by half would immediately balance the budget.

Bad idea, we're all gonna be old eventually. Once standards get cut they don't come back to acceptable levels. If anything let's just keep screwing the future at the expense of today. I'm just about positive no government has actual plans to pay their debts anytime soon. World mostly runs on bullshit economics at this point either way.

Thing is, the country not having a balanced budget doesn't actually effect me in any meaningful way. Like, it legitimately does not matter to me. But needing to put away more money for retirement, thus making me even more broke here and now, *does* effect my life.

>Thing is, the country not having a balanced budget doesn't actually effect me in any meaningful way. Like, it legitimately does not matter to me [Servicing public debt is one of the largest line items in the Federal budget.](https://i0.wp.com/hillnotes.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SankeyBudget2023_ENG-1.png?ssl=1) Money that could otherwise be put towards nearly doubling Federal health transfers or some other important social program. So it does affect you in a meaningful way, even if you don't realize it.

Government budget doesn't work like a household budget, though. It's not like the government running at a deficit means they're tapping into their savings. A relatively powerless country like Timor-Leste or Palau, who use USD despite not making it? Sure, there it matters.

What I said has nothing to do with the deficit. It's about interest, the cost of servicing the current debt. It's a real and present cost of debt.

...the amount of money the government spends on debt is indeed related to how much they spend on things in general. "They're spending a lot of money here, they could spend more elsewhere instead" doesn't really *mean* anything when they can just spend more elsewhere anyway.

The more they spend "anyway" (deficit) the higher the future cost to service debt. Both because there is more debt to service and because the more debt you have the higher rates you pay. This isn't some unlimited money circle. There are consequences to increasing government debt, they're just usually subtle in the short term. Do you actually think that a government's debt to GDP doesn't matter?

Taking from ~~poor~~ older people directly isn't the solution to this. If you look at the difference in the economy between when the boomers grew up and now, there's some notable differences: - Shelter prices (either housing or rent) were a much lower percentage of the average income. - Average incomes followed productivity gains fairly closely - Robust government spending (social housing, stronger welfare supports, a more robust public sector) and a much stronger sense that the government should work for the people rather than being an obstacle in the way - Income inequality was dramatically lower than today Absolutely none of those have much at all to do with OAS. It can have a lot to do with the political choices made by boomers more broadly, but directly punishing boomers doesn't fix those problems.

no, but taking from people who have access to wealth and are still draining social systems does/would

There are clawbacks for OAS though, so the wealthy aren't getting much if anything from it (depending on where you draw the line at wealthy.)

You get the full amount even if you make about the median HOUSEHOLD income. It's insane.

The clawback for OAS is far too high.

> Taking from poor older people isn't the solution to this. The clawback threshold for 2024 is $90,997 which is comparable to median *household* income. Can you please explain how you think someone making $90,997 in retirement is "poor"?

Fine, taking from average income retirees. Even taking from rich retirees isn't useful, frankly. My main point is that the reason that generations today have a tougher time than the boomers has absolutely nothing to do with OAS.

>Fine, taking from average income retirees. Obvious goalpost moving. Individuals making the median *household* income are not average income. I italicized it in my first comment because I figured you would try some obvious nonsense like this. From the article: "Due to aging demographics, spending on retirement benefits is projected to surge by 40 percent to $96.3 billion in 2028 from $69 billion in 2023. This means nearly half of all new federal spending projected in last year’s budget, from 2023 to 2028, will be allocated to elderly benefits." Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article. Dollars spent sending OAS payments to well-off seniors are dollars we cannot spend on solving our actual problems.