I’m not the most social guy in the world.
I might have mentioned this a time or two before?
The irony is, I was the most social guy you would have ever met when I was in my 20’s. I had more friends and acquaintances than I could imagine!
But life changes.
And while I might joke about wanting to “be alone in my basement,” that comment isn’t exactly absent of truth…
Whenever I ask a friend or colleague what they’re doing that evening, or on the weekend, and they reply, “I’m having dinner with some friends,” my canned reply is always, “I’m so sorry to hear that.”
People who know me will chuckle. Others think I’m just a curmudgeon.
But when I sarcastically describe my “nightmare scenario” of a dinner party with a dozen people, again, there is some truth within.
Put a dozen people in a room, give them food, and maybe even some booze, and you’re going to debate anything and everything that comes up as a topic of conversation.
Money? Politics?
You can’t not disagree.
Religion? World issues? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the world in 2026?
Don’t even get me started.
As you can imagine, real estate is a topic of conversation at every single social function I attend, even though I attend very few. But in recent years, it’s the real estate adjacent conversations that are the most controversial.
One of the most debated real estate adjacent conversations today involves the status, role, responsibility, and finances of Baby Boomers, and I honestly can’t understand why.
Two years ago, I was at a dinner with three other couples.
Not by choice, of course…
The topics of conversation bandied about for two hours, but eventually settled on the role of Baby Boomers in today’s real estate market and economy.
One gentleman at the table was very heated!
There are hand-talkers, and there are non-hand-talkers, but when the latter start using their hands to talk, you know they’re hot!
The gentleman spoke passionately and angrily about Baby Boomers and what they have “done” to the world today. He blamed them for, among other things, increasing the cost of living for the next generations.
He said many things and had many memorable lines, but I will simply never forget this one:
“Baby Boomers have stolen wealth forward a generation!”
Fascinating.
I asked him to elaborate (not that I needed to), and he explained:
“Much of the money that the Baby Boomers have today was stolen forward a generation. They’re getting rich off the suffering of our generation. They have money that they were never meant to have. It’s money that was supposed to be for us, but through all their actions, decisions, and the way they set up the system to benefit themselves, they’ve taken the wealth that was supposed to be ours.”
Damn, Gina!
That’s what you might call a “hot take,” isn’t it?
This conversation went on for quite a while, and it turned out that the Baby Boomers were to blame for everything.
This gentleman said:
“My brother lives in Montreal. He’s a radiologist. And he can’t afford a house!”
Sad story, but it continued:
“He had to buy a house outside of Montreal just to get something suitable for his family.”
Ah!
I see.
So he could afford a house. In fact, he did afford a house and purchased one. But he couldn’t afford the house he wanted, where he wanted it, when he wanted it, all defined by him.
Imagine his suffering, having to buy a house in the suburbs?
And all because of the Baby Boomers, according to my dinner party friend.
Then came a fantastically memorable line, and one that I want to get your opinions on today:
“Baby Boomers are hoarding homes. It’s fucking bullshit.”
Hoarding?
You mean they all own twenty homes?
No.
You mean they’re LIVING IN THE HOME THAT THEY OWN?
Oh, cry me a river! Is this what society has come to? We’re blaming people for having the audacity to live in their own homes? To “stay” there longer than the peanut gallery thinks they should? We’re now making decisions for other people, and doing so based on our own self-interest?
The truth is, a large percentage of society today believes that Baby Boomers should somehow be forced to “give up” their detached, single-family homes and pass them on to the next generation.
But how they’re forced to give up their homes, and how overtly, is evolving with every passing day.
Articles like this are an example:
“Boomers Are Dragging Their Feet To Downsize And Taxes Are A Big Reason Why”
Financial Post
March 25, 2026
They’re “dragging their feet,” are they?
Because they have to downsize?
Or because society wants them to?
Here’s a line from the article:
At the end of the day, home ownership is something that Canadians have long been attached to and won’t give up easily.
Oh, I see, they “won’t give it up easily.”
Maybe if you hold them down, pin their wrists, put a pen in their mouth, and make them sign a sale agreement – then, maybe then, they’d “give up?”
Why all this pressure?
Why are people trying so hard to get seniors to sell their homes?
This next excerpt continues the theme:
But we are going to have to eliminate or reduce the tax consequences to get empty-nesters to change and create even more targeted housing if we want to convince aging demographic groups to downsize.
Ah, a softer approach.
“Convincing.”
We need to convince the aging demographic to get out of their homes. But we’re doing it for them, right? For their benefit? Because we care about them?
There’s absolutely no shortage of articles out there today about the intersection of Baby Boomers, real estate, and how we need them to sell their homes so we can benefit.
Throw in another jab – that they’re getting rich off their homes, and you get the following headline:
“The Housing Shortage Made Many Boomers Rich: Here’s Why They Might Dismantle The System Anyhow”
Toronto Star
March 29, 2026
This is where the author completely loses me:
When I talk to my parents about it, moving to a condo is out of the question. They love their house, of course, but equally important, they have friends in the neighbourhood; they take regular bike rides past the old elementary school; and they start most mornings sitting out on their deck with a cup of coffee, even in the dead of winter, watching the birds flutter in from the woods behind their house. Holding on to these relationships and rituals, plus their raft of empty bedrooms, might seem selfish. But the instinctual drive to hold on to their homes might actually be a matter of survival.
“Might seem selfish,” you say?
I have a message for you: Be a better daughter.
Nobody in society should be able to tell anybody else to move out of and/or sell their house.
Full stop.
I just watched somebody describe happiness and then crap on it. “Friends in the neighbourhood, bike rides, mornings with a cup of coffee,” you say? Well, to hell with that! Let’s force these people out of their homes. Get them into a condo. Or better yet, just bury them alive. They’ve had their time in the sun.
But this is the world we live in, like it or not. And I don’t like it.
I don’t think that somebody else should have input on whether or not I cut down a tree on my property. I believe that, so long as an individual is paying property taxes, they should be able to do with their property what they see fit. And I know there are retorts to this – these people shouldn’t be allowed to open a brothel, build a casino, etc. But cutting down a tree? Ugh.
The author further loses me when she quotes the country’s greatest communist and hypocrite, “Doctor” Paul Kershaw:
Paul Kershaw doesn’t think this outcome is as unlikely as it may sound. A public health researcher at the University of British Columbia, Kershaw started Generation Squeeze, a movement for “generational fairness,” off the side of his desk in 2012. Since then, it has become a non-profit “think and change tank” that advocates for a more even playing field among the generations when it comes to government spending and policy. Though Kershaw cautions against blaming any one group for our current housing woes, data shows there is a clear generational component to this crisis that must be taken into account when devising solutions. According to data from Generation Squeeze, it would’ve taken someone in their 20s or 30s 17 years to save for a 20 per cent down payment on a typical home in Canada in 2022, compared to five years for the same age group in 1976. In Vancouver and Toronto, it would have taken 27 years.
This is merely one quote, but trust me, this guy is dangerous.
Dr. Paul Kershaw has, for some reason, been given a platform in the Globe & Mail to spew his hatred of seniors and grow a legion of loyal followers who want to take away everything that seniors have earned. He’s a huge proponent of slashing the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security, which I think is absolutely unconscionable.
Never mind that these people were told all their lives to work hard, pay taxes, save for retirement, and that at the end of the road, they would get what was promised.
Now, we’re going to undo it? Take an 85-year-old who has been paying tax for sixty-seven years, and explain why. Go ahead.
Tell them that because we decided to massively inflate our population, without adequate infrastructure or planning, we’re now going to change the rules for those who have been playing by them their whole lives.
Generational fairness.
Give me a freakin’ break.
If we’re talking about generational fairness, then we need to level the playing field.
Let’s let the Baby Boomers go to school at a time when nobody could fail a class or be held back a year. When nobody could be disciplined. When there were zero consequences whatsoever.
Let’s let the Baby Boomers live in a time when nobody packed a lunch for the day, but rather ordered Uber Eats to their office, every single day, and then complained about the cost of living.
Let’s let the Baby Boomers live in a time when you can continuously loot a taxpayer-funded LCBO in broad daylight, but the person who tries to stop them is the one who gets fired.
Let’s let the Baby Boomers make a list of their micro-aggressions and hold a physical copy of their equity cards like they did at the NDP “leadership” convention last month.
Give the Baby Boomers dog-walkers, Amazon delivery, and the latest iPhone. Just make sure you give it to them in one of their “safe spaces.”
Now, talk to me about fairness?
This conversation is not Canada-specific, by the way. We’re seeing these conversations south of the border, too.
Here’s a similar conversation being had in an American publication:
“The Boomer Home Dilemma”
Business Insider
May 21, 2025
From the article:
Baby boomers dominate America’s housing market. They own roughly $19.7 trillion worth of US real estate, or 41% of the country’s total value, despite accounting for only a fifth of the population. Millennials, by comparison, make up a slightly larger share of the population but own just $9.8 trillion of real estate, or 20%. The disparity is a product of both their relative youth and the stark advantages enjoyed by their elders. Flush with cash from prior home sales and burgeoning stock portfolios, boomers can afford to win bidding wars and upgrade, downsize, or collect rental properties like Monopoly pieces.
Really?
Boomers are playing real-life Monopoly?
America is a very different country from Canada, and while I have no doubt that there are wealthy families, institutions, and investment trusts that are buying real estate in bulk, this article makes it sound like your mom and dad, and my mom and dad, are refinancing their homes and emptying their RRSP’s and RIF’s so they can hoard real estate to screw over the next generation.
Is this really the perception among today’s youth?
The author of this article looks like he’s in his 20’s, by the way.
And what comes next is taking entitlement to the next level:
An aging baby boomer may be forced out of their home and into a nursing home, leaving their progeny to figure out how to balance paying for upkeep on the house, a mortgage if there is one, property taxes, and the necessary healthcare. Without money set aside for these things, along with clear instructions for what to do with the house in those final years and beyond, the situation can easily devolve into chaos.
I see, I see, said the blind man.
So now, not only are we going to blame Baby Boomers for hoarding wealth, hoarding real estate, and stealing wealth forward, but we’re also blaming Baby Boomers for not “setting money aside” for children who inherit houses?
Is there any responsibility on the next generation?
Read that excerpt again. The next generation needs to “figure out how to balance paying for upkeep on the house.”
Shame on the 85-year-olds for not having enough money to support their adult children and grandchildren who stand to inherit from their demise.
So what’s the solution here, you might be asking?
For those of you who don’t agree with my opinions and who want to draw our attention back to the cost of living in 2026 and “how well Baby Boomers had it when they were younger,” what pearls of wisdom can I leave you with?
How about this statistic: 2.5 billion.
That was the world’s population in 1950.
The world’s population today is 8.3 billion.
Canada’s population in 1950 was 13.7 million people, and today it’s 42 million.
The reason that people today don’t “have” as much is that there are far more people. That’s both the simplest inference that you can draw, and at the same time, the most accurate.
But quality of life has never been better. Life expectancy has never been higher. Advances in medicine and technology have never made our lives easier. And Baby Boomers didn’t get to order Uber Eats delivery in lieu of cooking for their families. In fact, their parents lit the stove with matches when it was time to prepare dinner after a long day.
I think it’s time we show some respect for our elders, and maybe, just maybe, ask them what they want instead of thinking about what we want, and trying to claim it’s what they need…
Alan
at 8:36 am
Well done, David.
You’re a relatively young man to be tackling this topic, but it is most appreciated.
The generation behind my lot aren’t the ones leading the mob. It’s the youngest adult members of our society. Those who haven’t endured or faced adversity. Even my grandchildren, God bless them. Mid-20’s and looking for a free pass.
I never lit a stove with a matchbook though.
Serge
at 9:31 am
We are not 42 mils anymore… Gov counted in students and temps for that.
The pendulum is moving back, under 40 mils.
Ed
at 9:37 am
I approve of this Monday Rant
Daniel
at 10:20 am
“Tell them that because we decided to massively inflate our population, without adequate infrastructure or planning, we’re now going to change the rules for those who have been playing by them their whole lives.”
You’re sugarcoating this.
What you mean to say is that millions of newcomers to Canada are benefitting from a system that was paid for by seniors who worked for fifty years, and now the same seniors are being told to move aside.
Ron D.
at 10:44 am
An excellent article. But then again I’m a boomer :). I did buy my first house in the eighties in Burlington with 1% down. Thank you Royal Bank and thank you Royal trust. Now this generation can thank the government for requiring an arm and a leg down. These liberals, dei and socialists are taxing you to death and you can’t even figure it out. What kind of fools do we have going through the universities. Good luck. And yes I’m working on my self-directed brokerage account. Big time LOL.
Marina
at 11:21 am
Like it or not, the boomers will start to die off in the next couple of decades. We are on the verge of the biggest wealth transfer in history. This will happen inevitably, without having to force grandma to downsize. So who will be blamed then?
There are many solutions here. Yes, tax breaks are a good tool to encourage seniors to downsize faster. Cost is definitely a factor for my parents to stay put. Building higher density family housing is a good idea. Capping immigration is good.
But even if you incentivize seniors to downsize, do these people really think they will magically be able to buy a four bedroom in town for 80% off? Just because they really, really want to? The swiss cheese logic is just insane.
Shawn
at 12:50 pm
Obviously the people that penned these garbage articles aren’t taking into account the day when they will be sitting on a deck sipping a coffee and having someone tell them it’s time to move. NOW! Selfish, entitled, spoiled, take your pick. Things have been moving in the direction for senior home occupation for years. The pandemic accelerated things because people that may have considered moving to care facility quickly changed their minds when they saw how these people were treated. And with the continued promotion of reverse mortgages, there are more options available. Don’t forget, this generation that’s doing all the carping seldom wanted for anything. In many cases their education was paid for. In many more cases the parents chipped in to help them buy a home. All of these seflish weasels need to start thinking of others for a change. My mother turns 93 this month and is still in the home she bought in 1967. I say good for her and hope she has many more years there.
JL
at 1:53 pm
The “let’s force boomers to do x,y,z to fix the world” type arguments are obviously misguided, but (for the sake of debate at least) there is a solid kernel of truth behind your dinner guest’s sentiment. The era of the boomers was always one of “kicking the can down the road” at whatever cost to avoid or delay ANY short term pain. Possible small recession? Can’t have that, go into deficit! Another recession? Go into an even bigger deficit. Gov debt too big? Inflate the money supply, kids will sort it out later. Can’t fund infrastructure – maybe raise property taxes? Nah, can’t be upsetting the people who own homes; take it from income taxes or new buyers instead. Economy still sluggish? Lets open the borders to stimulate demand, and as a bonus your house price will rocket (unless you don’t own one yet)…etc. Now, these all aren’t “directly” a boomer thing, but as the majority voting block catered to by the political class for decades (and one that keeps ensuring those same policymakers get elected), they are and continue to be the clear primary beneficiaries of almost all government policies. That’s where I see this sentiment having some truth behind it; policies are almost universally geared toward the comfort and wealth preservation of that demographic class, but since there is always a cost to every policy, it’s usually easiest to punt those costs into the future, where our kids will (eventually, in some form) need to pay them.
ParkhurstBessborough
at 5:37 pm
Could not agree more with today’s blog, David.
Leave seniors alone. They’ve worked and paid taxes longer than any other “group.”
Let them keep their hard-earned money, and give them the pension/OAS they’re owed.
Ace Goodheart
at 6:47 pm
I have been speaking out against Kershaw and his “young communists of Canada” operation (ie, “Generation Squeeze”) for years now. Back when T2 was PM, he was trying to convince the Feds to put in place a yearly “housing fairness” tax, which would be a recurring annual tax on a person’s home equity. His numbers are “cooked” and he does not point out obvious things about the period of time in which “boomers” grew up. Such things like interest rates (back in the late 70s and early 80s, interest rates were routinely in double digits – my father had a 22% mortgage. The reason why houses “look” cheap back then, is because it cost a whole lot more to borrow money than it does now. A $75,000 house is not cheap, if you are paying 22% interest on the mortgage.
There is also the myth of full, easy employment. You graduated from school and according to the Young Communists of Canada, everyone got a full time, high paying permanent job and went out and bought themselves houses……yeah OK. This is also nonsense. Look at the unemployment rate in, say 1978 – it was 7.6%. Today, it is, gasp, 7.6%. So the exact same amount of unemployed people, and yet things were so wonderful in the 70s?
I grew up in the 70s and 80s. We had one partially non functional car. A 76 Dodge Aspen. If you drove it on the highway, it overheated. If you stopped it, you had to wait 2 hours before it would start again (you planned your trips, OK, if I park here, I can get groceries and do the laundry, and in 2 hours’ time, the car will start again!). Every so often another piece of the body would fall off (back then, a car rusted out in about 5 years). I remember watching the road go by through the hole in the carpet under my feet. Today’s cars are unbelievably reliable. They go for 10,000km between oil changes. You don’t need to take the spark plugs out every 3000km to clean them (or the engine no longer starts). A guy I know bought a 78 beetle and within a month, it no longer started. He had no idea why. I helped him remove and clean the plugs and clean the breaker points, and of course it started right up. He had no clue how 1970s cars worked, or how much effort you had to put into them, to keep them working.
Back then, no one used a mechanic. Your father taught you how to set the points, where to aim the timing light and how to use the nail file to clean off the grunge and carbon from the spark plugs when you took them out. You changed the oil by parking the car over the ditch at the bottom of your driveway…..
I mean, life is just so much better now than it was back then. I remember when credit cards came out, my father refused to get one. He said they were “inflationary” and he did not want to contribute to price inflation (he was right – the 2% charge the credit card companies levy on the business, gets passed to the consumer).
We had no internet. I didn’t eat at a restaurant, other than a McDonalds, until I was 17 years’ old. The first time I tasted a coke was at age 8 when we found an unopened can and took it and hid behind the shed in the schoolyard and all drank it together. Your mother fixed your socks by a process called “darning” where she would stitch back in thread that had worn through (and then you had these lumps on the heels and at the tips of your toes). How many patches did I have on my snowpants? How many kids had rode my “new bike” before I did?
People who say that the boomers had it better than them, really need to stop watching old movies, and talk to some boomers about how things were back in the 70s and 80s. There was this thing called the “oil shock” caused by an organization called OPEC. It caused a deep recession, which the “boomers” lived through.
There is just no way that life was better back then. If people came out of all that owning houses, it is because they were incredibly tough and they learned to survive in harsh, crushing economic circumstances.
Then you get people like Kershaw who sees these old folks, after a life of misery, hardship and struggle, enjoying their final years in the houses they spent a lifetime working for – and he wants to take that away from them. It is really hard to understand how people like that get a following at all. The soul lessness of the young generation perhaps? Or just immaturity combined with ignorance and greed?
misha
at 11:16 am
Thanks Ace for the great comment.
Vancouver Keith
at 12:46 am
The absolute, outside limit for blaming others is age 29 and 364 days. Legal age of majority is 21 and the brain is fully developed at age 28. By the time you reach the end of your twenties, and hopefully long before then it is all on you. You own your outcome fully, you are responsible for the choices you have made, and you still have plenty of time to continue to get better at navigating this journey. Envy and jealousy are very toxic emotions, and have no upside.
DAF
at 10:40 am
Thank you for describing my thoughts, especially in the entitlement range!
Izzy Bedibida
at 8:11 pm
Good points. My parents bought in the late 60’s when Trudeau #1 had a home Buyers plan that made it possible for my parents to buy a nice semi at 3x dad’s earnings.
Such plans don’t exist anymore.
The intervening years of high interest made GIC’s a no brainer and my parents built up great savings with no added risk.
Mom has become a millionaire because of the huge increases of home values, but there is nothing for her to downsize to.
In my case, I bought my home at 4.5x income and in the intervening years, my income has doubled but my home is currently 10x my income.
If I was much younger I could not not afford to buy my home, nor could I build wealth by investing in simple GICs like my parents did.
I would have to buy a home in Barrie/outer suburbs and what I saved in the initial house price would be spent on cars and commutes.
The cost of cars commuting and wasted time is not really discussed-other than “buy further out” or “raise the family in a 650 ft 2 bdrm condo”
Kaylee
at 5:18 pm
It’s one thing to argue that boomers are getting a bad rap, but your misinformation about Paul Kershaw undermines your credibility.
He’s not in favour of cutting CPP and his recommended reforms for OAS boil down to stop giving nearly $20k per year in government welfare to seniors with a HH income of $190k. Not exactly “dangerous.” OAS is the #2 budget item and reform is critical if there is any hope of balancing the budget.
misha
at 11:21 am
Completely agree with the overall sentiment.
There is place for fair criticism about the policies that made housing so expensive – but it’s not like the boomers who voted for the governments that implemented them were looking to screw over their children for selfish benefit.