Money isn't everything

Globe and Mail Update

Four in 10 Canadians, particularly younger ones, would be willing to take a pay cut if it meant spending more time with their families, according to a poll released Monday.

The split between genders was fairly even, with 38 per cent of men and 42 per cent of women saying they would accept a 20 per cent drop in pay for 20 per cent more time with their loved ones. Three in 10 Baby Boomers would make that tradeoff, compared with just over half of younger adults aged 18 to 29.

The poll of 2,006 adults, conducted in mid-August by Environics Research for ADP Canada, also found that respondents were willing to consider giving up some of their wealth for a greener future. Half of the Canadians polled said they would consider donating 10 per cent of their paycheques if it meant a healthier and cleaner environment for their grandchildren.

Again, the older generation was less likely to consider doing so with 43 per cent of those over the age of 50 saying they would make such a sacrifice versus 65 per cent of those over 18 and under 30.

But just because Canadians love their families, it doesn't mean they are 100 per cent honest with them. More than one in five Canadians – 22 per cent – said they hide certain purchases from family members. Women who do so are most likely to squirrel away clothes while men are most likely to hide electronics.

Nearly six in 10 Canadians – 58 per cent – say their current financial situation is better than that of their parents when they were the same age. Not surprisingly, 69 per cent of Albertans felt that way, compared with 52 per cent of British Columbians.

Respondents were, however, split on whether the next generation would be better off when they reach the same age: 36 per cent said they would be, 32 per cent said they would be the same while 26 per cent said their children will be worse off.

Source

Our commentary in the Globe and Mail

September 11, 2007

  1. Ottawa Mens Centre.com from Ottawa, Canada writes: Time with families? Canada's parliament needs to understand that hundreds of thousands of children never get to see their fathers because Canada has failed to legislate a mandatory presumption of equal parenting after separation. Men are now afraid of having children. Canada now has a "negative population growth". It can change virtually overnight by two changes. Firstly, the above mandatory presumption of equal parenting after separation, and, equitable child support that recognizes the cost of children's accommodation and time with non custodial parents. While we have children treated as geese that lay golden eggs of tax free income to impoverish the payor generally male parents, it encourages feminist lawyers to ask judges to make draconian "indirect" , "illegal" and "improper" orders that rightly assume family court judges will make any order that is an end to a means. For example, back in 2001 a lawyer Lesley Kendall from the Kingston Law firm Cunninham swan, knew a Sudbury judge found fraud, threw out an order that a father was a vexatious litigant and ordered an expedited trial of custody. Another judge Justice Guy Mahaffy, now the North East regional senior, issued 5 criminal charges of assault against the mother. Lesley Kendall then applied in Kingston Ontario for a restraining order against the father "to stop the litigation". Lesley Kendall then gave evidence while arguing the motion in front of "Justice Denis Power of Ottawa" who not only banished the father from "Kingston" but in addition, made the order "permanent", that is "for life", and hit the father with $6,500 in costs, which of course must be paid before any motion or trial can be heard before access can take place. If you think out senate is corrupt just go to Kingston family court and watch Lesley Kendall and the feminist judges leave their trail of destruction. www.OttawaMensCentre.com 6113-797-3237