Millennials who are saddled with debt such as costly mortgages might well bear the brunt of higher interest rates in the months to come, a new RBC report argues.
Older millennials, adults aged 35 to 44, had debt-to-disposable income ratios around 250 per cent in 2019, while Freestone noted that metric was roughly 150 per cent for the same age group in 1999.
Can confirm we’re sitting around 250% but this is after exercising significant restraint to not take on as much mortgage as the banks would have given us. Everyone I know who bought over the last couple of years went all out and I can’t imagine them being any lower than 300-350%.
Royal Bank’s wealth-management division bore the brunt of the reductions in the second quarter, according to filings. The unit’s headcount plummeted by almost 1,300 in the quarter, when the company sold a European asset-servicing business to a joint venture of Credit Agricole SA and Banco Santander SA. That countered a 667-person increase in Royal Bank’s capital-markets division.
Im going to upvote just because you provided a link to backup your argument. Need more of that.
Edit: Just thumbed through the report, and based on my experience my above scenerio is still likely what is happening as well. Amount of work wil remain the same, but fewer people to do it.
Maybe. It’s probably tone-deaf of me to say this, but in my experience “wealth management” advisors are glorified salespeople who funnel people into their bank’s overpriced mutual funds. Those people deserve the chance to a good livelihood, but that particular job is not great (and I would never suggest that people see a bank for investments to begin with).
No, you’re right. Business should be allowed to adjust accordingly to their needs and no one is guaranteed a job.
And I’ll add to that: executives earn every single cent of their bonuses based on record profits they make and shareholders earn their dividends for supporting executive’s decisions, let’s say in this instance to fire 1500 people. And when those folks are off the payroll the profits will increase and bonuses and dividends will reflect that.
And when the Canadian government steps in to help banks, as they did after 2008 to the tune of 114 billion, the taxpayer gets to help banks maintain their profit margins so shareholders and executives can keep their well deserved rewards for their forecasting mistakes.
Just always seems to me like the dollars and cents matter to the banks (and big business) when we’re talking about a $40,000 salary but a few extra billion to executives and shareholders, well now, why should we question any of that when it’s obviously well deserved and integral to the banks ability to function.
But hey, it’s the free market. And that means some people are free to earn millions of dollars just as some people are free to all of a sudden earn nothing.
Edit: read the linked article and yes, some of this move is lateral (selling a division) but some of it is not.
My original point stands (IMO) as the RBC is saying how the younger generation is fucked while they continue to fuck us in the ass and add a service charge for the fucking.
How is it in bad faith? I agreed with your response at the beginning of my comment.
The rest was context that I added, in what I felt, would be similar to an argument that any business would posit as to why they should be allowed to reap record profits while laying people off and at the same time telling us how we’re all fucked.
My original point was that RBC is telling us that we’re fucked. Meanwhile they are contributing to the fucking of us while they take in astounding profits from their businesses practices which are designed to fuck us and to top it off they fuck over some of their own employees in the same breath. There is an overall cognitive dissonance here that I was focused on, not the minutiae of whether or not a business should be able to hire and fire who they please.
You are correct. Businesses should have the autonomy to hire/fire people as they see fit. Glad we could make sure that point of the argument is settled.
There is nowhere to begin. I agree with your point. Fundamentally, business should be able to make those decisions about who it employs and who it doesn’t.
But maybe, and hear me out here, they shouldn’t be telling us how fucked we are while they are fucking us - the consumer, the taxpayer and a portion of their own employees.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I can’t believe I’m going to defend the big banks, but are you suggesting they should keep unneeded staff on payroll if the company is profitable?
Hey youre salaried right?
Yup
Great, we laid off 3 people and you need to work 100 hour weeks to keep things going
Do I get paid more?
You can get paid in unemployment if you keep sassing like that
Note, I have been given the line that I am expected to work 100 hour weeks. No I am not joking.
I don’t think that’s the case here:
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/rbc-plans-to-trim-jobs-as-ceo-mckay-vows-more-cost-cuts-to-come
Im going to upvote just because you provided a link to backup your argument. Need more of that.
Edit: Just thumbed through the report, and based on my experience my above scenerio is still likely what is happening as well. Amount of work wil remain the same, but fewer people to do it.
Maybe. It’s probably tone-deaf of me to say this, but in my experience “wealth management” advisors are glorified salespeople who funnel people into their bank’s overpriced mutual funds. Those people deserve the chance to a good livelihood, but that particular job is not great (and I would never suggest that people see a bank for investments to begin with).
In short, yes. At the very least this would allow for better work-life balance for their employees. If that was any priority of theirs.
No, you’re right. Business should be allowed to adjust accordingly to their needs and no one is guaranteed a job.
And I’ll add to that: executives earn every single cent of their bonuses based on record profits they make and shareholders earn their dividends for supporting executive’s decisions, let’s say in this instance to fire 1500 people. And when those folks are off the payroll the profits will increase and bonuses and dividends will reflect that.
And when the Canadian government steps in to help banks, as they did after 2008 to the tune of 114 billion, the taxpayer gets to help banks maintain their profit margins so shareholders and executives can keep their well deserved rewards for their forecasting mistakes.
Just always seems to me like the dollars and cents matter to the banks (and big business) when we’re talking about a $40,000 salary but a few extra billion to executives and shareholders, well now, why should we question any of that when it’s obviously well deserved and integral to the banks ability to function.
But hey, it’s the free market. And that means some people are free to earn millions of dollars just as some people are free to all of a sudden earn nothing.
Edit: read the linked article and yes, some of this move is lateral (selling a division) but some of it is not.
My original point stands (IMO) as the RBC is saying how the younger generation is fucked while they continue to fuck us in the ass and add a service charge for the fucking.
This has to be the most bad-faith reply I’ve gotten in a long time. Where did I say any of the things you’re ranting about?
How is it in bad faith? I agreed with your response at the beginning of my comment.
The rest was context that I added, in what I felt, would be similar to an argument that any business would posit as to why they should be allowed to reap record profits while laying people off and at the same time telling us how we’re all fucked.
My original point was that RBC is telling us that we’re fucked. Meanwhile they are contributing to the fucking of us while they take in astounding profits from their businesses practices which are designed to fuck us and to top it off they fuck over some of their own employees in the same breath. There is an overall cognitive dissonance here that I was focused on, not the minutiae of whether or not a business should be able to hire and fire who they please.
You are correct. Businesses should have the autonomy to hire/fire people as they see fit. Glad we could make sure that point of the argument is settled.
I started typing a reply to this but I don’t even know where to begin. Good luck in your future endeavours.
There is nowhere to begin. I agree with your point. Fundamentally, business should be able to make those decisions about who it employs and who it doesn’t.
But maybe, and hear me out here, they shouldn’t be telling us how fucked we are while they are fucking us - the consumer, the taxpayer and a portion of their own employees.
Good luck with yours too.