Comments on: Survey of Household Spending http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/ Helping you invest and prosper Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:54:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The High Cost of Eating Out? http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-133286 The High Cost of Eating Out? Thu, 15 May 2008 02:54:19 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-133286 [...] eating out is as big a problem as the column makes it out to be. According to Statistics Canada, households spend an average of about $7,000 on food, including eating out in restaurants. If 30% of food expenses were spent in restaurants, it works [...] [...] eating out is as big a problem as the column makes it out to be. According to Statistics Canada, households spend an average of about $7,000 on food, including eating out in restaurants. If 30% of food expenses were spent in restaurants, it works [...]

]]> By: Traciatim http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119201 Traciatim Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:29:10 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119201 Actually I'll have to retract my previous statement. It was based on the participation rate indicator found: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/indi02a.htm This shows the participation rate at around 67.7%, or one third of all people of working age not even trying. Tonight however I found the following page: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor05.htm I found out that the participation rate among the 25-44 range (or 'prime working years') was up at 92.1% for males and 82.6% for women. That puts it much more in line with things like health issues, temporary unemployment, and other more not-leech-like reasons. The younger crowd a bunch will be in school or 'finding themselves'. For the older crowd, health problems and 're-finding yourself' are probably up there in the reasons. This paints a much better picture than the one in every three people I was ranting about earlier. Actually I’ll have to retract my previous statement. It was based on the participation rate indicator found:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/indi02a.htm

This shows the participation rate at around 67.7%, or one third of all people of working age not even trying. Tonight however I found the following page:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor05.htm

I found out that the participation rate among the 25-44 range (or ‘prime working years’) was up at 92.1% for males and 82.6% for women. That puts it much more in line with things like health issues, temporary unemployment, and other more not-leech-like reasons. The younger crowd a bunch will be in school or ‘finding themselves’. For the older crowd, health problems and ‘re-finding yourself’ are probably up there in the reasons. This paints a much better picture than the one in every three people I was ranting about earlier.

]]> By: Phil S http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119181 Phil S Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:00:42 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119181 As with most other "average" statistics, it's an interesting read, but at the same time it's almost completely useless. When you add up all of the percentages, it totals up to just below 85% - does that mean that the average family is saving the remaining 15%? And I'm assuming that a "household" spending of $67,736 implies that in most cases, this is a double income family? So, each income earner is making about roughly half that amount? If so, that would explain why the tax expenditures (at 20%) is so low. I don't have exact numbers, but my taxes are WAY higher. Also, I'm not sure how they categorize stuff like condo fees - is that part of "shelter" or "household operation"? The other percentages seem quite reasonable. Including the clothing at 4%, which equates to roughly $2800 a year. After all, some of us DO buy suits and I also prefer to buy designer threads for casuals, too (they fit and look better). I think I personally spent over $6K during one single clothing shopping spree last year. As with most other “average” statistics, it’s an interesting read, but at the same time it’s almost completely useless. When you add up all of the percentages, it totals up to just below 85% – does that mean that the average family is saving the remaining 15%? And I’m assuming that a “household” spending of $67,736 implies that in most cases, this is a double income family? So, each income earner is making about roughly half that amount? If so, that would explain why the tax expenditures (at 20%) is so low.

I don’t have exact numbers, but my taxes are WAY higher. Also, I’m not sure how they categorize stuff like condo fees – is that part of “shelter” or “household operation”?

The other percentages seem quite reasonable. Including the clothing at 4%, which equates to roughly $2800 a year. After all, some of us DO buy suits and I also prefer to buy designer threads for casuals, too (they fit and look better). I think I personally spent over $6K during one single clothing shopping spree last year.

]]> By: David http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119180 David Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:45:37 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119180 "With unemployment at record lows you’d think more people would be out searching making the participation rate skyrocket . . . " There are many reasons some individuals are not in the work force, including many with health issues. My father, a small businessman of 50 years, often commented that when the unemployment rate hits 7% or less, many of those in the unemployed category are not individuals you would want working for you. If you truly feel these individuals should be working, possibly you should consider supervising or hiring them. If your and your co-workers health status is such that you can continue to be truly gainfully employed, count your blessings, MANY are not in that category, and some must rely on the social safety net that we as a compassionate society have the ability to provide. DAvid “With unemployment at record lows you’d think more people would be out searching making the participation rate skyrocket . . . ”

There are many reasons some individuals are not in the work force, including many with health issues. My father, a small businessman of 50 years, often commented that when the unemployment rate hits 7% or less, many of those in the unemployed category are not individuals you would want working for you.

If you truly feel these individuals should be working, possibly you should consider supervising or hiring them.

If your and your co-workers health status is such that you can continue to be truly gainfully employed, count your blessings, MANY are not in that category, and some must rely on the social safety net that we as a compassionate society have the ability to provide.

DAvid

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119096 Canadian Capitalist Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:20:14 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119096 Ryan: I made an error in the post. It is corrected now and thanks for pointing it out. Ryan: I made an error in the post. It is corrected now and thanks for pointing it out.

]]> By: Ryan http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119031 Ryan Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:37:01 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119031 Quick question: How does 67,736 equate to a 1.3% jump from last year's amount of $63,640. Am I missing something??? Quick question:

How does 67,736 equate to a 1.3% jump from last year’s amount of $63,640. Am I missing something???

]]> By: Traciatim http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119014 Traciatim Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:23:57 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119014 JBubba: Actually... no. Not jealous, angry that they are spending my money sucking the system dry of funds. With unemployment at record lows you'd think more people would be out searching making the participation rate skyrocket . . . but it's not the last time I looked, Jan/07 to Jan/08 the rate was only up 0.2%. CC: I didn't even notice that, I guess I must be pretty blind. This means that for each quintile they are spending around 1000, 1700, 2350, 3400, and 5750 for each. To put it another way, the top 20% spend more on clothes than the bottom 40% spend on food, interesting. JBubba: Actually… no. Not jealous, angry that they are spending my money sucking the system dry of funds. With unemployment at record lows you’d think more people would be out searching making the participation rate skyrocket . . . but it’s not the last time I looked, Jan/07 to Jan/08 the rate was only up 0.2%.

CC: I didn’t even notice that, I guess I must be pretty blind. This means that for each quintile they are spending around 1000, 1700, 2350, 3400, and 5750 for each. To put it another way, the top 20% spend more on clothes than the bottom 40% spend on food, interesting.

]]> By: Big Cajun Man http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-119010 Big Cajun Man Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:14:15 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-119010 Interesting, my income tax number is bigger, as is my food, maybe that is where all my money goes? The income tax number (it's even bigger when you throw in property taxes) is one that is hard to fix (legally at least). --C8j Interesting, my income tax number is bigger, as is my food, maybe that is where all my money goes?

The income tax number (it’s even bigger when you throw in property taxes) is one that is hard to fix (legally at least).

–C8j

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-118975 Canadian Capitalist Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:40:35 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-118975 nobleea: The $67,700 is average, so it includes a lot of high spenders. Yes, it also includes households that spend more than they make. Traciatim: It's also interesting that all income quintiles spend the approx. the same percentage of their spending on Clothing and Transportation. That would mean that these expense categories are a bit flexible - we could save money by say driving the current vehicle for one or two more years and spending a bit smartly on clothing. nobleea: The $67,700 is average, so it includes a lot of high spenders. Yes, it also includes households that spend more than they make.

Traciatim: It’s also interesting that all income quintiles spend the approx. the same percentage of their spending on Clothing and Transportation. That would mean that these expense categories are a bit flexible – we could save money by say driving the current vehicle for one or two more years and spending a bit smartly on clothing.

]]> By: JBubba http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/survey-of-household-spending-2/#comment-118965 JBubba Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:20:48 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/03/05/survey-of-household-spending-2#comment-118965 "every time I see the social assistance family driving a nice truck and buying lots of smokes and lottery tickets..." A 5 member family living on social assistance brings in $2162 a month (in BC) and you're jealous? “every time I see the social assistance family driving a nice truck and buying lots of smokes and lottery tickets…”

A 5 member family living on social assistance brings in $2162 a month (in BC) and you’re jealous?

]]>