this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)

Canada

7230 readers
567 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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%.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The first paragraph of the article states:

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

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.