Canadian Household Net Worth Increased 44% between 2005-2012, US falls 40% Between 2007-2010

In what is an absolutely "on-topic" post for this newsgroup, I can report the following:
- Between 2005 and 2012, the Median Net Worth of Canadian households increased by 44% to $243,800 in 2012.
- Between 2007 and 2010, the Median Net Worth of american households DECREASED by almost 30% to a paltry $77,300 in 2010.
If anyone can find more recent US numbers (ie - household net-worth for 2012) I dare you to post it.
The american dream - Alive and Well in Canada.
The american dream is a Canadian reality.
The american dream is no longer home ownership. The american dream now is to collect food stamps and social-security disability.
=============February 25, 2014
In a report that takes a long view on the state of Canadian finances, the agency finds that the 2012 medium net worth among family units — of two or more persons — has risen 44.5 per cent since 2005 to $243,800, and almost 80 per cent from 1999.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/25/canadian-families-are-getting-wealthier-statistics-canada-study-says-as-net-worth-rises-sharply-since-2005/ ============== Meanwhile in the USA...
==============http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/11/news/economy/fed-family-net-worth/
Income and net worth fell from 2007 to 2010.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The average American family's net worth dropped almost 40% between 2007 and 2010, according to a triennial study released Monday by the Federal Reserve.
The stunning drop in median net worth -- from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010 -- indicates that the recession wiped away 18 years of savings and investment by families.
The Fed study, called the Survey of Consumer Finances, offers details on savings, income, debt, as well as assets and investments owned by American families.
The results, though more than a year old, highlight the marked deterioration in household finances brought on by the financial crisis and ensuing recession.
Much of the drop off in net worth -- to levels not seen since 1992 -- was attributable to a sharp decline in housing values, the Fed said.
In 2007, the median homeowner had a net worth of $246,000. Three years later that number had fallen to $174,500, a loss of more than $70,000 on average.
Families who reside in the west and south, where the housing market was especially hard hit by the recession, were worse off than their peers in the rest of the country.
Making matters worse, income levels also fell during the tumultuous three-year period, with median pre-tax income falling 7.7% as earnings from capital gains all but disappeared.
The loss of income and net worth appears to have impacted savings rates, as the number of Americans who said they saved in the prior year fell from 56.4% in 2007 to 52.0% in 2010 -- the lowest level recorded since the early 1990s. ===========
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Family Guy:

I'm no economist, but I would expect that number to get significantly worse if/when the mortgage deduction is eliminated or reduced.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/28/2014 8:57 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Which I hope is soon but I really doubt that it happens in the foreseeable future.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Also to live somewhere where snowfall isn't measured in feet. Not to mention those invigorating sub-zero temperatures. Here in central Florida we have neither of those; our weather would be improved, however, if Canadians would keep their weather north of the border.
And my net worth is a way above the Canadian average, thank you.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Oren:

Speaking as one with relatives in Germany - who we used to visit every couple years - our relatives were living substantially better than we ever did.
My wife and I were computer application developers near Philadelphia PA and the in-laws were truck mechanics about an hour each from Wiesbaden and Frankfurt.
They had us beat hands-down: vacation time, health care, quality of houses, education, retirement pay, work week, public infrastructure... you name it.
People ask "If it's so great, why don't you move there. My only comeback is "Too many Germans".....
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Oren:

My take is that, in Germany -and Europe in general - the benefits productivity increases was at least split between workers and business owners... but in the USA, the benefits of productivity increases went exclusively to business owners.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Bob F:

I didn't want to muddy the water by going there.... but my impression is that just about every worker in Germany belongs to a union.
At one point, my #2 daughter and one of my German nephews worked essentially the same job: in a travel agency. The nephew, of course, belonged to a union; and the daughter, of course, did not.
The nephew got paid for overtime, six weeks vacation, lunch breaks, a living wage, medical coverage, pension plan, and so-on and so-forth.
The daughter had to work overtime but did not get paid for it. Not only that, but they didn't even get fed at mealtimes.... they just had to skip dinner and keep working until they were allowed to leave. *Then* they got to eat.
Needless to say, no vacation time, no medical coverage, and very close to minimum wage.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Bob F:

My feeling has always been that a balance of power is essential.
Unions want to bleed the employers dry by not working and taking every dime.
OTOH employers (at least corporate employers...) in their heart of hearts want to work people 24-7, feed them just enough to get the right amount of work out of them, and then sell the bodies for fertilizer.
Sanity lies somewhere in the middle and you need unions - however bad they might be - to achieve that balance of power.
Otherwise we're going to continue on the long slide down that we're already on.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since unions topped out as %age of workers 60 years ago and has been downhill ever since and since the best time for workers was arguably in the 70s and 80s, it is really hard to suggest unions had all that much to do with it.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Kurt Ullman:

I'm just looking at the contrast between people in my family doing the same jobs in the USA and in Germany (where unions are pretty much universal).
The difference in pay, working conditions, and benefits is just huge.
I had my own little experience working for a large electric company. We had a vote on whether to unionize and the workers voted unions down.
Before that, the company had unionization hanging over it's head and life was pretty good - mainly, I think, because they didn't want to give employees a reason to unionize.
Once unionization was no longer on the horizon, things deteriorated quickly. Before they made me an offer I couldn't refuse, we were all made to understand that, among other things, we were expected to work no less than 50 hours a week - for 40 hours pay.
There's plenty more in that vein, but the bottom line is that once they knew there was no danger of a union coming in, they tightened the screws without mercy - and kept tightening them.
But that was just one anecdote from one person. The USA-Germany thing is what really formed my opinion.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

40% of a Canadian net worth, because at the same earning level, the American pays a lot less tax, and buying a home is , generally speaking, a lot cheaper in the US - and the interest paid on the mortgage is tax deductible - which it is NOT in Canada. Retail prices of many things, including high end purchases like cars are also lower south of the Can-Am border.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Family Guy;3204637 Wrote:

Well, I don't have any numbers to quote, but I have a quotation nonetheless:
In 2012, the Human Development Index ranked the top six countries for quality of living as: Norway, Australia, United States, Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand.
That's from: 'Standard of living - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living)
So, if Canadians are so well off, why isn't Canada in that list?
eh?
--
nestork

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A lot of that is related to the fact that these aren't (American) unions. They tend to be part of the board (that hasn't ended well in the US see one of the many United Airlines), there is much less of an adversarial stance on both sides, they work together instead of both being out to get as much (or as little) as possible without any real interest in the long term health of either.

Which is exactly when the union talk should have started back up. This isn't a one and done type of thing.

--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.