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.

  • BlameThePeacock
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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%.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • BlameThePeacock
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • BlameThePeacock
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 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.