The report said 59 per cent of retirees report helping their non-student adult children with both day-to-day expenses and big-ticket items like home purchases.
The report said 59 per cent of retirees report helping their non-student adult children with both day-to-day expenses and big-ticket items like home purchases.
My wife and I are providing for my MIL (aka she is living with us and not working) and she has barely cracked 60.
She does provide some childcare for us, but man is she lazy as shit while doing so… Just throws on TV and screws around on her phone. Somehow my wife can’t even work full time despite the fact that her mother is home almost all the time, that’s how bad it is.
It says this includes things like helping with grandkids schooling.
My parents started a university savings account for my kids the day they were born because they wanted to, I hardly consider it “supporting” me and my wife in any way. The kids won’t need it for a decade still, and we could cover their costs without it just fine.
Helpful, sure, but the headline is misleading at best if it’s including that in the 60%.
I cannot fathom why you wouldn’t consider that support. It is by definition. I think the problem is you consider support a negative for some reason. You’re supposed to support your family there’s nothing wrong with it.
The majority of Canadian retirees are supporting their adult children financially, which they say is having a negative impact on their own finances, a new report has found.
My parents have no negative impact on their finances, they can still afford to travel internationally 2-3 times a year for multiple weeks at a time, and yet they would be included in that percentage.
This makes the headline very misleading, since it implies that 60% of retirees are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances.
Instead, I’d like to see the percentage of retirees who think they are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances. That number would be more useful in determining what to do about the situation.
Heh. After Dad died, my Mom shacked up with a guy we met while Dad was in the hospital. He went to the same high school as me, the same year I did. He’s lazy, broke, bipolar and unmedicated by choice - and a rabid far-right conspiracy theorist… So technically, she’s supporting an adult child.
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
Exactly the same happens in several countries . It’s a global crisis
My father makes more retired than I do working full time.
That is straight up depressing
Op should have tried harder to be born earlier in time.
Pull your time machine up by your bootstraps you lazy millennials. /s
It is funny because in something like 30 years, it will be children that will provide financially to their 80-90yo parents
My wife and I are providing for my MIL (aka she is living with us and not working) and she has barely cracked 60.
She does provide some childcare for us, but man is she lazy as shit while doing so… Just throws on TV and screws around on her phone. Somehow my wife can’t even work full time despite the fact that her mother is home almost all the time, that’s how bad it is.
And they are minimally obligated to do so considering they’ve hoarded such a gigantic portion of the economy
It says this includes things like helping with grandkids schooling.
My parents started a university savings account for my kids the day they were born because they wanted to, I hardly consider it “supporting” me and my wife in any way. The kids won’t need it for a decade still, and we could cover their costs without it just fine.
Helpful, sure, but the headline is misleading at best if it’s including that in the 60%.
I cannot fathom why you wouldn’t consider that support. It is by definition. I think the problem is you consider support a negative for some reason. You’re supposed to support your family there’s nothing wrong with it.
The first paragraph of the article states:
My parents have no negative impact on their finances, they can still afford to travel internationally 2-3 times a year for multiple weeks at a time, and yet they would be included in that percentage.
This makes the headline very misleading, since it implies that 60% of retirees are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances.
Instead, I’d like to see the percentage of retirees who think they are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances. That number would be more useful in determining what to do about the situation.
I don’t see what that has to do with anything in either of our comments.
I’m also still not seeing why you immediately assume negative connotations.
I immediately assume negative connotations because the first sentence states “Negative Impact”
I don’t know what part of that logic is confusing to you.
Heh. After Dad died, my Mom shacked up with a guy we met while Dad was in the hospital. He went to the same high school as me, the same year I did. He’s lazy, broke, bipolar and unmedicated by choice - and a rabid far-right conspiracy theorist… So technically, she’s supporting an adult child.
I’m doing just fine, thanks. :D
Socialism exists
Gen X: Perhaps I treated you too harshly
That’s somebody saying that to Gen X right?
I’m saying that Gen X is realizing it wasn’t as evil as they were taught
Boomers are too far gone
Millennials already are commies
I don’t think Gen X ever let anyone convince them they’re evil 🤷♂️