[Admiral Beez]

Unless you plan on working until the day before you drop, CPP ain't going to cut it.

Agreed, RSPs are essential. However if you’ve paid off and maintained your house, eliminated all credit card, line of credit, car loans and other debts, successfully launched your adult children (avoiding KIPPERS), and most critically not divorced your spouse, you can live off very little in retirement. Off season, last minute travel is cheap, and one (or no) car is usually feasible if you live in a neighbourhood with high walkability and transit, for example.

 

[lenaitch]

Agreed, RSPs are essential. However if you’ve paid off and maintained your house, eliminated all credit card, line of credit, car loans and other debts, successfully launched your adult children (avoiding KIPPERS), and most critically not divorced your spouse, you can live off very little in retirement. Off season, last minute travel is cheap, and one (or no) car is usually feasible if you live in a neighbourhood with high walkability and transit, for example.

Agree (never heard the term 'kipper' before!). What hits a lot of post-retirement folks is supplementary health coverage (dental, chiro, vision, etc.). If you have been paying into one all along through an employer, probably not so bad with post-retirement rates, but if you have to jump into the market in your 50s or 60s, it's a new monthly cost, and as you get older, harder to be without.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Agree (never heard the term 'kipper' before!). What hits a lot of post-retirement folks is supplementary health coverage (dental, chiro, vision, etc.). If you have been paying into one all along through an employer, probably not so bad with post-retirement rates, but if you have to jump into the market in your 50s or 60s, it's a new monthly cost, and as you get older, harder to be without.

A fair point. My employer offers no benefits whatsoever, being a small firm. Thankfully, my wife works in admin for the TDSB so I believe her family coverage carries on to age 65, when government takes over.

 

[lenaitch]

A fair point. My employer offers no benefits whatsoever, being a small firm. Thankfully, my wife works in admin for the TDSB so I believe her family coverage carries on to age 65, when government takes over.

Ya, you might want to keep an eye on that (unless you move offshore, as mused). OHIP 65+ coverage is pretty limited; certainly no where near what most supplementary health plans cover.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Ya, you might want to keep an eye on that (unless you move offshore, as mused). OHIP 65+ coverage is pretty limited; certainly no where near what most supplementary health plans cover.

We’ll cross that bridge then, though I believe my wife’s coverage can be extended for life with a small co-pay. Both my parents died in their 60s, so I’m thinking more about the present.

 

[DKsan]

I have to say I am deeply unimpressed with MBAs. The top tier ones are probably good for networking with other high flyers, but many of the people I come across in interviews with MBAs fail to impress. That said, I think some business education in undergrad can be useful.

I work for a business school at a London university. The school is relatively new, but they made the deliberate note to not launch with an MBA. Regardless of not offering one, we get TONS of questions asking about our MBA because people expect it of an older university; the problem is that most of these people simply have a BA or BSc in Business, and they're simply not useful unless you have lots of work experience. We'd get lots of money if we did offer one, but there is a deliberate refusal by every level in the faculty to not offer a uselessm oversaturated degree.

 

[Northern Light]

Agree (never heard the term 'kipper' before!). What hits a lot of post-retirement folks is supplementary health coverage (dental, chiro, vision, etc.). If you have been paying into one all along through an employer, probably not so bad with post-retirement rates, but if you have to jump into the market in your 50s or 60s, it's a new monthly cost, and as you get older, harder to be without.

Ya, you might want to keep an eye on that (unless you move offshore, as mused). OHIP 65+ coverage is pretty limited; certainly no where near what most supplementary health plans cover.

We'll have to see what actually happens, of course...........but if current promises are delivered upon.......(big if); there will be universal pharmacare (applies to seniors too); and dentalcare for those making less than 70k co-pay free, (up to 90k w/co-pay).

I tend to think if you over 70k in retirement income most dental expenses wouldn't be a problem.

Ontario's medical assistive devices program does not cover eye glasses; but for most items provides 75% coverage (hearing aids, wheelchairs/walkers) etc. * it does cap certain reimbursements, such as limiting hearing aids to $500 each in coverage.

Not to suggest supplementary coverage isn't wise; but with any luck, its absence will prove less harmful in the future.

 

[lenaitch]

We'll have to see what actually happens, of course...........but if current promises are delivered upon.......(big if); there will be universal pharmacare (applies to seniors too); and dentalcare for those making less than 70k co-pay free, (up to 90k w/co-pay).

I tend to think if you over 70k in retirement income most dental expenses wouldn't be a problem.

Ontario's medical assistive devices program does not cover eye glasses; but for most items provides 75% coverage (hearing aids, wheelchairs/walkers) etc. * it does cap certain reimbursements, such as limiting hearing aids to $500 each in coverage.

Not to suggest supplementary coverage isn't wise; but with any luck, its absence will prove less harmful in the future.

No doubt things look like they will improve, but I would strongly suggest supplementary coverage will remain important:
- hearing aid coverage is capped at $500 for fairly basic device that runs around around $2K
- it will be interesting to see what the scope of dental coverage will emerge. Even many supplementary plans cap coverage of so-called high-end procedures like crowns, root canals, dentrues, etc.
- many other services, such as physio, chiro, etc. are not covered.

Getting old ain't for the faint of heart. You will be surprised how intimately familiar you become with your healthcare coverage.

 

[Northern Light]

No doubt things look like they will improve, but I would strongly suggest supplementary coverage will remain important:
- hearing aid coverage is capped at $500 for fairly basic device that runs around around $2K
- it will be interesting to see what the scope of dental coverage will emerge. Even many supplementary plans cap coverage of so-called high-end procedures like crowns, root canals, dentrues, etc.
- many other services, such as physio, chiro, etc. are not covered.

Getting old ain't for the faint of heart. You will be surprised how intimately familiar you become with your healthcare coverage.

I was very familiar w/my parents situation, neither of whom had supplementary coverage in their retirement.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Getting old ain't for the faint of heart. You will be surprised how intimately familiar you become with your healthcare coverage.

It’s the LTC and palliative homes that worry me. Not the cost, though that’s an issue. I’ve covered my feelings in this earlier post. If I end up headed to either of those I’ll be asking my family doctor for an exit.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I’ve been thinking about these discriminatory hiring practices. If the goal is to increase fairness why not have blind interviews or rig the hiring to filter out questions or steps that unfairly eliminate BIPOC, women and the alphabet (I know, shame on me) people whilst making sure to encourage people of all sorts to apply and to feel that they have a fair shot?

But I don’t think fairness is what we really want. As the above would take a decade or long to bear visible fruit. So instead, in hopes of seeing faster results we go with unfairness, and intentionally prohibit applications from anyone outside of the groups we wish to target. I can’t see how this gets past the HRC.

And the diversity bureaucracy at Canadian universities is becoming insane, and from a taxpayer's POV a travesty of misspending. Spend that money instead on improving access through scholarships and paying a living wage to your non-tenured teaching staff?

 

[Jonny5]

I thought of this thread when seeing this news post.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/pay-applicants-for-job-interviews-1.6592367

One of the issues is how much time candidates spend to prepare for interviews and wind up rejected almost instantly, or were rejected before they even showed up, yet they still had to put in all the time and effort for it, and potentially some serious expenses for travel. I imagine that goes hand-in-hand with candidates who face other barriers.

Having recently tried to hire someone, I see both sides there in that we received way too many resumes that were explicitly not meeting the job qualifications, so there was a lot of noise to cut through, but even after that half the candidates pre-screened by HR that were passed on to me were still very poor fits on actual questioning (when it says "advanced Excel skills required" you shouldn't be telling me you have never even heard of Pivot Tables).

At the same time, I have personally seen and experienced going through this process only to discover there are requirements that were not mentioned in the job posting, or worse, you learn you are competing against the dreaded "internal candidate" who you know they have planned to give the job all along, and the job posting was only a formality. I can see in that scenario the expense to go through the process only to have never actually had a chance to be hired is really defeating. So perhaps if the business had to pay to interview someone they would wind-up only selecting people who really have a chance to get the job instead of wasting people's time.

[Maybe the mods can rename this thread to a more general "Shitty hiring practices", or something less risque ]

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

[Maybe the mods can rename this thread to a more general "Shitty hiring practices", or something less risque ]

Then you're just making it politically correct for the politically incorrect. >.<