Some baby boomers are spoiled brats!

It never amazes me to listen to them. They had --usually--so easy: lots of job prospects,... And, yes, the system made it so that most of the top leaders are pathological (because to get to the top, most had to be or become). The system has to change. Men and women should work less (especially if they are going to have children). Will the shareholders allow that to happen? (Rhetorical question)

A Few Notes

Ah, inter-generational infighting, it's as old as walking upright. A few notes:

* You fail to mention that in the 2004 National Graduates Survey, 55% of graduates had no student loans from the government. To rephrase that: the majority of graduates had no government loans.

* Of those students who had loans, nearly as many paid off their loans in two years (22%) as reported 'having difficulty' (24%) repaying their loans. And only 14% had loan in excess of $25,000, a number you gleefully pull out of air in the closing paragraph.

* And then you simply get your facts wrong. Please re-read the material you quoted:

"Those with only government student loans owed on average $19,300 in 2000, and those with only private loans owed $9,500. However, bachelor graduates who owed to both sources were in debt to the tune of $32,200 on average."

So it's not 'everyone', is it? It's a subset of the aforementioned 45%.

* That survey, by the way, is here:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040426/d040426a.htm

Surely you're young enough to know how to hyperlink?

* How old are you? And who do you mean by 'younger Canadians'? The survey you cite discusses the class who graduated from university in 2000. What were entry requirements like in 1996? I'm 33, and when I entered UVic in 1991, the entry requirements are in the mid-seventies.

* Lastly, it's a good idea to actually quote the columnist you're criticizing. I'd rather read Ms. Wente's words instead of your paraphrasing.

You'll always Find a Critic

I'm 54 and I heard the same rubbish when I was growing up in the sixties so nothing new here ... anyway I did what I wanted with my life despite the criticism.
By the way my 19 year old second cousin is making 30 bucks an hour in labour short Alberta as an apprentice welder so instead of trying to be a member of the Torontonian Intelligentsia which is a dead end you could try something a little more lucrative instead of moaning.

It is what the "Boomers" have created

It always amazes me that the "older" generation raises their off-spring and then is so dissatisfied with the result! If children are not given the intellectual tools to compete in real life, to achieve their own goals, to respect themselves and others, to have a work ethic, then who failed in their parenting responsibilities? Those who complain about the younger generation should look in the mirror.

All generations at all times

All generations at all times have been the victims of the "wealth creating" brainwash, religions and ideologies of ruling classes.

In my youth it was to fight and die in glorious wars, now it is to be "competitive", which is the same thing, with the same dead ends.

The ruling aristocracies always have driven people up the scaling ladders to take the other lord's castle, with the promises of Heaven of those who fall. And the suckers, by the millions, always fell for their propaganda and lies.

Now it is the unlimited purchasing powers of junk people don't need, but are brainwashed to dream about and demand.

The biggest problem is, and will be, the artificial creation of incompetence, total reliance on pushbutton survival and bought services, which will destroy the lives of millions when this criminal, unsustainable system collapses.

The present system may drive up the phoney figures of the GDP, but destroys the capabilities and talents of humanity.

As far the demand for university education is concerned, I found out in the refugee camps of post WW2 Europe that the so called
"highly educated" people were totally incompetent, lived in filth, selling the food from their children's mouths for blackmarket cigarettes, but people with trades could always adopt and survive. Their quarters were clean, their children had food and clothes.

That was when I decided to learn a trade, no matter how much education I may get. I did get the education, but when I came to Vancouver, I apprenticed with an old English cabinetmaker and never looked back.

The only thing I asked my children was to learn trades. They did and then more and are doing well.

If this, and any generation would have been and be taught to think rationally, this would be a better world.

I just read that the departing Chairman of Exxon received a $400. million golden handshake. This is the crime wave and the corporate mafia people are being misled to serve with their lives, just as we fought and killed each other for the survival and luxury of other bums, while we were creeping around and starving in the mud.

Ed Deak.

I agree with this article,

I agree with this article, the baby boomer generation had it so easy compared to the following generations. And in being lazy, ha, boomers were labeled lazy by their parents too.

Most Boomers?

I'm sincerely hoping that Wente is not typical of the attitudes of boomers. I've watched a couple of generations grow up and find that each group of people is as diverse as my own group, mid-boomers. This article highlights the increasing difficulties faced by successive generations as we move farther toward a feudal society and there are more of us. In addition, most of my contemporary acquaintences are well aware of both the aforementioned difficulties and the direction of society and are working, each in his/her own way, to improve the specific situations of the young they know, and to improve general conditions in society, generally with decent results in the former undertaking, and demonstrably poor results in the latter. As a boomer, I try to apply the test of self as control: if I'm going to call someone else lazy, self-absorbed and egotistical, I have to ask myself to what extent those monikers apply to me and to my actions. Even when I come out all right on my little test, I figure it's better to do something positive than to call someone out for something where they may just be following the course laid out for them by the selling machine. That way, we can avoid the age-old trap of blaming others for unpleasant situations over which we have little or no control.

Good topic, good article.

Good topic, good article. Boomers are the most spoon-fed, hand-held, hot-house generation in human history who still can't stop thinking about themselves even as their shelf-life approaches expiry. They've screwed up everything from basic institutions (marriage, church, schools) to government (foreign policy) to culture & society (the universities, sustainable social norms, environment, economy). We are stuck re-doing everything from where our grandparents' generation left off.

The analogies between my generation - the Precarious Generation - and the Quiet Generation (our grandparents, survivors of the Great Depression) are legion.

1961 Too many minnows in a small pond!

Remember that author who wrote about the Boomer demographics?

I recall an article in Report on Business in the 80's which essentially said that late boomers (born 1959-1962) were essentially hooped.

Very hard to start a career in any field becuae of the recession, the fact that all the boomers ahead of them got in line at the job market ahead of us.

Also changes that meant instead of 3 people to do 1 job, it became 1 person to do 3 jobs!

We were also told at the time by a conservative member of parliament that a BA was worthless! (I guess that is why I never paid back my Quebec student loan I received to get my BA!)

As a poster noted, each generation has elements that were, or are being, left behind.

I hope the next generation realizes our present path is unsustainable and pushes the change needed as most of the Boomers benfited from treating the environment as an absorber of all the flotsam and pollution necessary to create their economies!

Of course if the next generations feel slighted they can always design a 'Get Even with Boomer Generation' video game!

ass backwards

Yes, we have reached the point where endless education is needed, in order to qualify for a job!
The reason is simple: there are too many applicants!
What has happened over the ages is that the people who screen new applicants, decide that anyone who has had the stamina to sit through university, probably also will endure the B.S. they will encounter at the job in question!
It is a fail-safe system (in their opinion) so that if the candidate is a failure they can at least point to his/her "qualifications".
There are of course many tests that could be applied to sift out the person best suited, but by ramping up the minimum requirements there will hopefully be fewer applicants.
Unfortunately people with special talents often have no patience with this system, and decide to go it at their own fashion.
That is a hard route, and many exceptional people who could have been instrumental to the betterment of society, wind up on the sidelines.
So, what is needed is to realize that our rating system has gone awry!
We need to select applicants on their actual human qualities!
That some can cram succesfully for exams, really do not prove anything!

The idea of endless

The idea of endless education at the individual’s expense is a big scam that lets employers off the hook for investing in workplace education and training. The formal schooling system hands them a near-finished product with 17-23 years of formal education (13 years primary, four college/undergraduate, 2-6 graduate...that's a quarter century of education!) and they still have to be paid off big-time by government and institutions just to convince them to participate in co-ops and bridging programs (which provide them with cheap, publicly subsidized labour to boot).

The notion that students should spend nearly 1/3 of their lifespans pursuing highly specialized education/training, another 1/3 continually re-training, and the final third paying it off is absolutely absurd.

Lies damn lies and statistics 1

You know Darren for someone so ready to start spouting off criticism you do a piss poor job of taking a few seconds to look for other sources. Or perhaps you only are interested in quoting stats that support your particular political perspective

Here is a link to a report on the defunding of need based education in Canada, but to sum it up I'll quote part of it's conclusions:

http://www.educationalpolicy.org/PR_070827_EndofNeed.html

Part of what is important about this is that since 1998 post-secondary education funding has been benefiting most those who can afford to pay, or more specifically students from families that can already pay for the student's education. Those families now pay even less, so the statistics on student loan rate repayment make perfect sense as student populations are increasing only those of families that can afford to pay, while those burdened with debt are from families that cannot. This is leading to ever increasing inequality, and it doesn't even begin to track the numbers of low income students who do not bother to enroll, because they cannot afford to go to university or college.

Darren you are ignoring basic current economic realities in order to cherry pick and then spin statistics to push your ideological agenda. If you have the gall to criticize the writer of this piece for shoddy research, you should at least get your ass in gear and spend a few seconds supporting your assertions a hell of a lot better than you have.

Lies damn lies and statistics 2

And continuing on that theme above, here is a quote and a link to a report from the Canadian Association of University Teachers:

http://www.caut.ca/en/publications/educationreview/educationreview4-1.pdf

There is a rapidly growing problem of financial inequality taking place where post-secondary education is concerned. It is in fact terribly flawed policy on the part of government influenced by our baby boomer run corporations.

It is policy that is incredibly short sighted if baby boomers in their retirement years want to see a healthy Canadian economy staffed by a population with high paying jobs whose tax dollars can help fund their retirement years, including the needs of infrastructure upkeep everyone will need to maintain any descent economic output.

OH really?

Get real folks. Baby Boomers make up a small part of the population and not all of them, in fact probably about half vote for progressive governments. That means there are a lot of the younger lot who like sheep support the Harpers and Campbells of this world. So don't blame the baby boomers because we were focused on getting ahead. We didn't waste our time on the useless pursuits of todays youth. The political will is there among Boomers as we see the opportunities for the younger crowd diminished by the Free Trade and Globalization proponents. Start connecting the dots and recognize who it is that determines how the world economy works.

Oh yes, we lived most of our lives before anyone thought of global warming and before it was fashionable to be Green but if you witness the apathy of todays youth a few times you discover quite clearly that looking in the mirror is only half the problem.

Did the next generation expect to have it easy and live on the efforts of their parents? Don't sit around and whine about the mess we left. You work with what you got. If every young person was focused and dedicated to a cause they would be a force to change the world.

Excellent point James Burns

The fact of the matter is, that for families with money, the child (or grandchild for that matter) who is taking post-secondary education can transfer up to $5,000 per annum of tuition and education deductions to a parent or grandparent (whether they pay the costs or not). In the hands of a high-earning professional such a deduction has more value than an RRSP contribution in terms of after-tax benefits - in fact, the size of the benefit, in the pocket of a parent or grandparent, will only increase as their marginal rate of tax goes up.

The wealthy will have their children obtain government-supported student loans; transfer the deductions to themselves - pocket the tax difference - and pay off the loan for the graduating child with the accumulated benefits (not to even consider the future value of the accumulated tax savings) - in essence, a properly planned strategy can provide a free education for the children of the rich – provided by the government.

The problem is the way the system is structured and it sure isn't to the benefit of people who need and deserve some equity and assistance. Nice wrinkle though.

It's ironic...

...that if moving back into the family home is a "crippling blow to one's ego and self-worth", no critisism from boomers is required.

The belief that moving back home is a form of failure must already be ingrained - maybe externally by societal expectaions, or internally from the mammalian need to grow to self-sufficiency.

But I think the problem is a failure by young and old to adapt to the extended human life-cycle. Why is the education period still 12-16 years beginning at age 5, when life expectancy has increased substantially. Maybe more time is needed to prepare for increased complexity.

Or maybe less complexity is needed.

Suck it up

Suck it up, boomers. This is the world you created.

The only assertion I made...

James: The only assertions I made were that Mr. Fawcett had deceived and mislead through his selective use of statistics, and in one case misinterpreted them entirely. I also questioned his argument on entry requirements.

Can you specify precisely what 'ideological agenda' I'm pushing? And then can you indicate which of my points is inaccurate?

Our Biggest Failing

I'd say our biggest failing as baby boomers is we failed to make our kids understand that when they leave home they have to start from ground zero, and build a life of thier own.
Too many of our kids live a life of luxury at home and aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to build thier own lives.
When I graduated tech school, my student loan rate was 18%, and the only work available was in the middle of the NWT. I took the job and sucked it up until I paid off my loan and saved enough money to find work else where.
Its always been tough to get started, but it takes sacrifice to be successful, something our children haven never been taught.

Yes Ruben.

And when you have had your day, do you really think they won't be talking about the opportunities lost by whining and blaming the ones before you. You just made my point.

Get used to it!

But don't blame the boomers, at least not directly.

The future is going to look more and more like the past as fossil energy declines. The boomers (myself included) did what they did on the shoulders of 500 petroleum slaves per person. Your generation would have done the same thing. But you're not going to have 500 energy slaves in the future. In 20 years, the most you can hope for is half that number, given projected declines and increased demand from China and India.

So stop blaming a generation for the accident of being born when energy was the cheapest it's ever been -- or ever will be. And start working on solutions for a low-energy world.

We're going to see the return of frugalism and feudalism -- your choice! Either learn how to live well with less, or grimly resolve to live as a near-slave to the constantly shifting whims of the moneyed elite.

So the jobs aren't as easy to get as they were in the '70's, when the boomers were entering the job market -- so what? Make your own job! That's the only way you'll have any job security in the future.

Sorry to sound so harsh. But I'm practicing what I preach.

Ideology

Well Darren, the ideological trend of your commentary is rather obvious. And I'll repeat it for you since you didn't seem to clue into what I stated. You dismiss the notion of there being an increased financial burden on students by selectively quoting a particular set of statistics without referencing other material that deals specifically with that current financial burden.

Not only didn't you take the time to check other sources, the spin you put on the statistics was that the majority of students don't have debt. Your emphasis. You weren't concerned with trends, particularly with the central premise of the article that life is financially more difficult now for students, you merely quoted the statistics from one report, and gave some anecdotal evidence of your personal experience. That clearly indicates that far from determining the accuracy of the article, you merely dug up some factoids to support your preconceived notions. You intentionally framed a limited set of information to merely support your opinion. That my friend is dishonest, and lazy, while giving the appearance of authority. If you want to challenge the writer's information, you're going to have to do a damn sight better job than that, particularly if you're directing the majority of your criticism at poor research.

So what sort of ideology does someone who wants to dismiss the notion of there being an increased financial burden on students hold? Typically someone who supports the current trajectory of off-loading the costs of education on students. Typically someone who wants to lower their tax burden onto others. Typically someone not bothered by the increasing elitism of post-secondary education. Of course by massaging statistics you get to avoid making those kinds of declarations, and instead get to throw mud on criticism of things you support while avoiding being identified with reactionary elitist policy.

High school guidance

High school guidance councillors are always pushing students to get a university education. When I mentioned that I wanted to apprentice in a skilled trade, my councillor nearly had a fit.

However, post secondary education institutions exist primarily to make money, not to educate. They don't care that the degree or diploma that you're getting may be worthless as long as they get their money.

As a tail end baby boomer (b. 1963) I learned this the hard way by going to college, graduating with a diploma, yet not finding a worthwhile job. I eventually got an apprenticeship in a skilled trade.

Young people are needed in the trades. Where else can you get paid to learn and then carry on making a good income? As a machinist I make over $60k per year. The only thing that's needed is a change of mindset by the people who have gone to university, especially highschool guidance councillors...often people are better off in the skilled trades.

What you've got there is a lot conjecture...

In my previous comment, I asked you to be precise, and you chose not to be. You speculated vaguely as to my character, opinions and the 'trend' of my argument. Tellingly, you used three instances of 'typically' in the last paragraph. Why don't we work with what's provable, instead of your guesswork?

I made some very specific criticisms of Mr. Fawcett's editorial, and you're, rather verbosely, using that scant evidence to paint me with a very generalized brush.

You've already described me as elitist, reactionary and as having a particular ideological agenda. This is, I think, what we call an ad hominem attack.

I should also note that I dig not, as you say, 'dig up factoids'. The only sources I cited were the same survey Mr. Fawcett did, except I used a hyperlink and was correct in all of my facts, and my personal experience (with regards to entry requirements).

It's notable that no one, least of all the writer himself, has actually disproven any of my criticisms. I emailed the Tyee and Mr. Fawcett to point out the factual error in his article--I hope it will be corrected.

In my previous comment, I asked a question which you ignored. Let's try it again: Can you indicate which of my points is inaccurate?

Well Darren - and, truth to tell, Max Fawcett

The National Graduates Survey, which was published by Stats Can in 2004 looks at graduates for one year only - 2000. In British Columbia - and it is certainly not different in most other provinces (excepting Quebec) - there has been a significant increase in the cost of a University or college education since then...as anyone who is currently doing post secondary studies will attest.
Secondarily, the National Graduates Survey, as a picture of student indebtedness today is dubious for other reasons :

1.For the class of 2000, 26% of college graduates and 40% of bachelor graduates pursued further education after graduation. These graduates are not included in the analysis.

2. As the survey also notes -
Although there was no change in the percentage of graduates with government student debt, college and bachelor graduates from the class of 2000 owed more, on average, than borrowers from the class of 1995.

Students in bachelor programs who graduated in 2000 owed about 30% more than the class of 1995 and 76% more than the class of 1990 (in 2000 constant dollars). College graduates with government student loans owed 21% more than in 1995 and 76% more than the class of 1990.

These increases reflect the rise in tuition fees over the 1990s. Average undergraduate tuition (in current dollars) increased from $1,185 in 1988/89 to $2,023 in 1993/94 and $3,064 in 1998/99.

Therefore, given the fact that tuition fees in some jurisdictions - such as British Columbia. By 2003 tuition fees in this province had already risen by an average of 67% - faster in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada.

In fact, it was not until 2005 that the Campbell government finally set the annual increase in tuition at the level of the increase in inflation.

I think it can safely be said that wealthy families will have done very well under these circumstances - if for no other reason than the tax implications I wrote about earlier in this forum - while other, less-well off students have fared very much less well - no matter what the frozen in aspic picture of the Stats Can survey actually shows.
continued below:

conclusion

One of the notes in the study is interesting in this respect:

In 2000, fully 80% of Medicine graduates (M.D.s)11 who were no longer in school
owed student debt at the time of graduation, and they owed, on average, $38,200.

Three-quarters of Medicine graduates had debts larger than $25,000.
These larger debts are related in part to the fact that tuition fees for medicine programs are significantly higher than for other undergraduate programs. In 1999/2000, for example, the average tuition fees for students in Medicine were $5,894 compared to $3,328 for all undergraduate students.

I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that, after making the necessary adjustments, the situation for all students today is closer to that of medical graduates with debt than it is to the picture described in the 2000 Graduates Survey

Well said.

You also forgot to mention that many baby boomers born prior to 1950 are refusing to retire, perhaps because they were poor money managers and can't afford to. This doesn't leave much upward mobility left for those of us who came into the workforce behind them. Some of these people have a tremendous depth of experience and something to teach. Many, unfortunately, have 2 years experience repeated 25 times, and really should just move on.

Oh, skywalker: a "baby boomer" is defined as one born as a result of the "baby boom" post WWII. So basically anyone born 1940 to about 1960 or so (last date varies up to 1964). As of 2001, the 47 to 64 age group was about 25% of the population. Yes, they are a varied group, but they're hardly "a small part of the population".

G West, I Wasn't Advocating For or Against That Data Point

G West: You're right to point out that tuition rates have increased sharply (particularly in BC, as I believe that they were frozen for much of the nineties), as has the amounts of student debt.

I've never denied that, nor am I certain of the validity of this particular report--though it does come from a reliable source. I only referenced it because Mr. Fawcett relied upon it in his editorial.

You're not the first commenter to seem to assume that, because I critiqued Mr. Fawcett's article, that I disagree with his views. I haven't expressed any such opinions beyond a narrow criticism of the way Mr. Fawcett cited certain facts and statistics.

I would caution you against your final speculation:

"I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that, after making the necessary adjustments, the situation for all students today is closer to that of medical graduates with debt than it is to the picture described in the 2000 Graduates Survey."

You may be right, but I'd prefer to see a newer report to get verifiable data on current debt loads.

Ducking

Ok Darren, the bit of problematic text in question in the article (which you did not properly quote, but in fact paraphrased, something you also criticized Fawcett for), I am assuming you mean this:

Yes it is as far as I can tell in error, as according to the report only 11% of all 2000 bachelor graduating students had both government and non-government debt averaging $32,200, or approximately 24% of the total who owe some government debt.

But, as I've pointed out, you dismiss the premise of the article, that there is an increasing financial burden on students, by highlighting the statistics from the report cited in isolation. Your errors Darren are ones of omission, and they are clearly intentional. There's nothing vague or speculative about your behavior. None of the information you cite Darren refutes the notion that students are under a greater financial burden than the baby boomers were when they attended university. What's more it's been 7 years since that 2000 class graduated. Tuition has skyrocketed since then, as has the cost of living, particularly in all the major cities where most of the universities are located, which Fawcett alludes to numerous time. You don't bother to comment on those points either. You're being dishonest in your commentary. And for someone who is a stickler for correct data it's a hypocritical tactic. So am I just engaging in ad hominem? Nope, because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and squawks like a duck it's probably a duck.

Damn Boomers!

Dear Mr. Fawcett:

Having been born in the 50's, I guess, makes me one of those terrible boomers you describe in your piece. Allow me to make a few observations:

When I graduated from university, I owed approximately $3000. Tuition was $400 per year. My own children, both university students, are paying in excess of $4000 per year, approximately 10 times what I paid. My brother's house, which he built on a rural Ontario one-acre lot ringed with mature maple trees, cost him $21,000. Its current value would be perhaps a bit more than ten times as much, but not much. I guess it would make sense that today's grad would owe ten times what I owed, or $30,000.

During my summers and after graduation, I worked in tobacco fields and oil fields, and on a factory assembly line. The most I ever made was $2.75 an hour. Do the math again ... and ... wait a minute ... that would be $27.50 an hour!

Could that be the problem?

P.S. I'm inclined to agree with you, Skywalker. If you young folk want something better, stop voitng, if you vote at all, for politicians whose heads are so far up their corporate masters' ... oh dear, I'm sorry, I got carried away, but I think you know what I mean.

Cheers.

Darren

I agree we need an updated report. The only reason I used the example of MDs was because their results (and their tuition levels in year 2000) were more closely aligned with what the average student would encounter today.

As far as the rest of it is concerned, I do remember reading, as early as mid-August of this summer that many current students appeared to have decided to hang onto their summer positions rather than return to their university educations this fall.

One thing that comes into play in some universities, which likely skews these results as well, is the existence of co-op programs. It would be interesting to ascertain what impact such opportunities (available only in some faculties and schools) might actually have upon the debt level of graduates.

I'd also like to know exactly how many families who are more than well-off enough to pay their own children’s way actually take advantage of the generous tax transfer situation available to all parents and/or grandparents. For any offspring who are more than 3 years out of high school the temptation to obtain an interest free loan for the duration of a university career while living at home and going to school might well be irresistible.

Free money is hard to turn down. I suspect there a good number of students in university today whose new cars have been financed by student loan money while they live in their parents basement...And, just in passing, I don't think I implied anything whatever about your views.

In truth, I think the best way to help students who actually need help is through the provision of grants and bursaries.

We have a retired UBC

We have a retired UBC professor neighbour, who was at Cambridge about the same time as I. We compared notes and came to the conclusion that we hardly paid any fees.

If that was possible in early postwar Britain, with all the debts and ruins around, why isn't it possible here and now, when the economy is allegedly "booming" ?

Because so called "foreign investment" was negligible in those days, corporate executives didn't have multimillion salaries and some high earners paid up to 90% in taxes. Now these multimillion execs and their corporations pay zilch, but the students and low salaried workers pay through the nose.

Now try to explain it to a so called "economist" that this whole present system is nothing but a fraud.

Ed Deak.

Be Creative

As someone who recently graduated, debt-free, from the most expensive university in Canada (tuition is over $15,000/year now), I would like to add my small voice in opposition to the statement that it is "virtually impossible to graduate debt-free."

While my parents aren't wealthy, they did have enough foresight to build a healthy RESP for me and I earned some good scholarships--so in many ways I have had opportunities that not every student is afforded. However, I have also worked hard doing less than stimulating work in my summers, and made good money doing so, and in this way I am not unique--anyone can work hard.

I am assuming that the author of this article is from BC. If this is true, he can’t help but be aware of the glaring labour shortage in this province and the one next door. Even as an unskilled labourer, he could earn upwards of $20/hour—not quite the above posters $27.50, but a lot closer than the $8-9 he would make at Starbucks. If the students of my generation were to go one step farther, and apprentice as Ed, suggested, they would easily be in the $30/hour range.

Now, I realize that this does not appeal to many people. Most of us would rather work at Starbucks, make minimum wage and go home without any dirt under our fingernails at the end of the day, than do manual labour. However, maybe this lack of motivation to work hard is what separates us from the Boomers. I agree that in many ways the boomers were a spoiled generation, or at least as adults they have taken on a real sense of entitlement. However, they were raised by people who lived through the Depression and the World Wars, so hard times were in living memory. My belief is they passed their sense of entitlement on to their offspring, but unfortunately for us, not the work ethic and sense of sacrifice their parents had.

Of course, it’s hard to argue with the numbers presented in this artilce, and by other commenters—prices have gone up and wages have not kept pace. But this is our situation, and we must learn to adapt to it. This is a different century, the problems are different and therefore so are the solutions. Maybe going to university will now require that we take a year or two off. Maybe it will mean moving across the country for the good jobs. These are not bad things—we are always learning more about life, regardless of if we are in university or not. And if anything, hopefully we as the parents of the next generation will start building our kids' RESPs early.

Labour shortage

Labour force participation

May 2000
64.8

May 2001
64.7

July 2003
65.6

July 2004
65.6

Aug 2006
66.8

Aug 2007
67.1

Looking at the very slight increase in the employment rate over the last 7 years I wouldn't say that the labour market is exactly on fire.

In fact, I would bet there's a quite valid reason that people are filling all those $8 an hour jobs, perhaps they can't find anything better? Perhaps everyone wanting to attend university isn't a big strapping lad?

Now although RESPs are a way of helping the undergrad achieve his goals, its safe to say its not an option available to everyone. In fact, I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that people finding university a bit out of their financial reach might be those with parents of modest means. Just a hunch, call me Kreskin.

Being born in the 60's, I'm not old enough to be a boomer nor am I a "young person". So I can be fair I think.

The boomers are retiring as we speak and have lots of money in the bank. Now I'm not a religous man so I have no hesitation in believing that they can't take it all with them. In fact, its the only form of "trickle down economics" I actually believe in.

And as they continue to leave the workforce I expect the so-called "labour shortage" to continue which will make the Libs in BC, the Cons in Alberta and the NDP in Sask and Man all economic geniuses, all thanks to aging boomers.

What Are Your Rules for Commenting?

James: It seems like you've got a lot of rules about how one should comment on The Tyee's website. Could you itemize them, so I know which ones I've breached?

Though you seem very eager to hear it, I'm under no obligation to round out my comments with a treatise on student economics or academic funding. My few, specific criticisms focussed on a truthful representation of the facts:

* That the majority of students do not receive government funding.
* That there are similar numbers of students who pay back loans easily as have 'difficulty' paying them back.
* That only a small percentage of students have large loans.
* That a fact in the article was wrong.
* That a hyperlink to a source was missing.
* That I was unclear on what age group Mr. Fawcett was discussing, and was therefore unsure of his points about entry requirements.
* That Mr. Fawcett should have quoted Ms. Wente's original editorial.

Based on these few assertions--more than half of which have nothing to do with student debt--you've insulted and attacked me, while failing to respond to any of them specifically. I leave it to others to speculate how this reflects on your character.

You still haven't pointed out which of my criticisms was inaccurate. As this is the third time I've asked, can I assume the answer is 'none'?

Incidentally, I didn't exhaustively quote Mr. Fawcett because I try to be brief, and his words are on the same page as ours. There was no ambiguity about which point I was referring to, was there? Has anyone been confused by the reference?

really be creative

don't work for a system that will screw you over.

don't vote for a government that doesn't care

do leave the system (the "boomers" helped create) and find your own way, this system is not sustainable anyway.

and darren, 1991? Uvic? That was so 16 years ago, its 2007 dude, 2007!

Imagine

Wow...I'm surprised by how much infighting is demonstrated in the posted comments. When will we learn to stop attacking each other (as workers or as families) and to focus our energies on improving the situation? We are all 'victiminized' by a political and cultual system that enriches itself on a mass of docile people who think of themselves as helpless, trapped. But remember, we buy into it.

We need to take responsibility for our thoughts, speech, and actions and change the world by changing our mindsets. It doesn't matter when you were born, or what generation you live in, history clearly demonstrates that there have always been economic problems for many that leads to warring. The use of domination (winner vs losers, the haves vs have nots, the academics vs the trades, men vs women, elders vs youth, management vs unions etc) is at the root of this cultures pain. Us believing that we can become one of the 'winners/dominators' by getting an expensive education is a significant fallacy. What would happen if we collectively aspired for happiness? Not just for ourselves but for all beings? What would happen if we stopped believing the cultural lies fed to us through the corporate controlled media and started following our hearts? Doing what brought us peace and joy? If you need an education for that..wonderful..it won't be expensive then.

As Lennon ( one of those maligned 'boomers)
sang...."Imagine all the people, living for today...imagine there's no country, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too...imagine all the people living life in peace....imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man, ...imagine all the people sharing all the world...you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us and the world will live as one"

Yes, each generation makes mistakes,but lets focus on improving what we've been given rather than whining about what we didn't get. Imagine what could happen then.

Good article and interesting comments!

I've seen both sides--I graduated from UBC as a semi-boomer--but made a living as a carpenter. I think Fawcett's right about much of what he writes. Being a university student was a hoot for me, and unbelievably easy. Today's students have a much more difficult time and the competition is fierce. I remember my last year's tuition fee as $560 dollars. Even allowing for inflation I think that's chicken feed compared to today's fees.

This also: In l964 the entrance requirement

was a 65% average in high school, which would just get you a few chuckles from an entrance application reader today.

Declining enrolments equals declining entrance requirements

Uh, talk to any dean of any post-secondary institution in this country -- the days of those prohibitive entrance requirements have been over for several years now.

Recruiters are tripping over themselves to lure members of a rapidly diminishing pool of potential students with 'lifestyle perks' (e.g., "Come to our university -- we have flat screen TVs in the dorms!").

A couple of years from now, we'll be right back to an era where "a pulse and a brain that was demonstrably connected to your spinal cord" gets you in.

I totally agree - from a baby boomer

[b]Who has two adult children, and one 12 year old at home. My 12 year old who is dyslexic, unlike my 2 adult children have proven to me that none of my children are getting a quality education, such as the one the boomers received in the 50s and 60s. What we have for an education system is a one-sized fit all approach. If one cannot fit into this mode, the education system will write the student off like a bad liability. In today's Canada, students are not as well-versed as the Boomers when it comes to writing, spelling, grammar or basic arithmetic. Does anyone wonder why young adults are having so much trouble trying to transverse the job market, when certain teaching methodology of the 60s and early 70s were thrown out, in favour of the one-sized approach that does not even come close to producing highschool graduates with the same skills as the boomers. I should know, my dyslexic child is being taught at home, using many of the same teaching methods that I had and many other boomers were subjected to and the methods work for my child. If I left it up to the education system and the teachers, my child would be failing.

Too old to be a boomer

I cruised through university, did I? In the mid '70's I needed 85% average to get into university and a GPA of at least 3.5 to get a scholarship---which I did, having no choice. While a scholarship meant a free bursary then, I needed that money to get by. I raised a child at the same time, worked part time at the same time (one semester, I worked full time and took a full course load) and came out with a $3,000 loan which at a salary of $600 a month was a tad difficult to pay off. It's all relative, eh? There were no computers so I didn't need to buy one. I went out for Chinese food once a month, bought all my books second hand, didn't buy clothes, didn't eat meat, lived communally, walked to school ... Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see students making sacrifices like that now.
I certainly don't believe that students are more intelligent now than they were then; however, I do feel sorry for today's students, because it seems to me that we had a more rounded education, at least in the liberal arts. I don't see the radical courses being taught and the social or political understanding/revolutions emerging from our places of higher learning. Coming from the haydays of radical reform we would never have considered the option of placing the blame on people who were older than us, just because they were older. The blame for society's ills does not fall on my lap; please don't try and shove it at me.
However, it seems to me that generations are skipped: what this generation shuns, the next wants. My children want what I shunned from my parents: a house, a family, a marriage, a secure job, and a pension plan. And I, like my parents, ask: "Where did I go wrong?"