Tag Archives: pension

World Economic Forum Report Highlights Retirement Trends as Life Expectancy Increases

June 9, 2023 The Silo Leave a comment

Due to longer lifespans, governments and employers must reshape approaches to retirement to ensure ageing populations can live fulfilling, healthy lives
New survey indicates shifting views on retirement and stark differences in how younger and older people see their future
World Economic Forum report provides new approaches to retirement that governments, employers and individuals can consider

New York, USA, June 2023 – Life expectancy increased from an average of 46 to 73 years between 1950 and 2019 and the United Nations forecasts further increases, estimating that global average life expectancy will reach about 81 years by 2100. Longer lifespans are causing individuals, governments and business leaders to rethink their approach to work and retirement.

Living Longer, Better: Understanding Longevity Literacy, a new World Economic Forum report, in collaboration with Mercer, a business of Marsh McLennan, explores how lengthening lifespans are reshaping how individuals view their working lives and retirement. The report offers recommendations for government and employers to ensure they are adequately supporting people in multiple stages of work and retirement.

The report highlights purpose and quality of life in addition to financial health and resilience – themes that are traditionally associated with retirement planning. It offers options that individuals can consider to ensure they are approaching work, learning and retirement in ways that best meet their needs.

“When it comes to longevity and living longer, healthier lives, everyone has a role on this critical topic,” said Haleh Nazeri, Longevity Lead, World Economic Forum. “How will business support an older workforce and one with growing caregiving needs, what will policymakers do to help all citizens reach retirement equity, and finally, what can individuals do at every life stage to ensure they are able to stay financially resilient in a longer life.”

“Employers are thinking more about the current age distributions within the areas of talent needed to operate their organizations and how to influence the trajectory of these distributions,” said Rich Nuzum, Executive Director, Investments & Global Chief Investment Strategist, Mercer. “To leverage longevity and fight the war for talent effectively, moving from individual roles to team-based roles can help employers take full advantage of the diverse strengths of teams that comprise a combination of older and younger workers.”

Views on Retirement
A new survey, Pulse Poll, of almost 400 professionals indicates that women and men view retirement differently. Women, for example, are 55% more likely to say they don’t know if they have saved enough for retirement.

The poll also reveals differences in how younger and older populations view their retirement futures. Both women and those under 40 are more willing to reskill but worry about associated costs. Both groups are also more likely to feel isolated.

Further results from the Pulse Poll can be found below and in the report:

Health is a top concern with two thirds of respondents indicating they expect to have caring responsibilities
Days of “Bank of Mum and Dad” may be reversing; many younger people are likely to have to financially support older family members
Pulse Poll respondents over 40 target lower income replacement levels in retirement
People are generally unaware of how to achieve their target levels of retirement income
More men looking forward to retirement, while more women need to understand their financial situation
Women are 55% more likely to say they don’t know if they have saved enough
Younger people are eight times more likely to use social media for financial advice
44% of under-40s want to retire by 60
Women and younger people are more willing to reskill but are also worried about associated costs

The respondent profiles to the Pulse Poll were homogeneous and predominantly included those who had undertaken higher education, were in more senior positions, were likely to be in employment at major global organizations and with a high level of individual agency and financial literacy.

While there are some sample limitations, the survey suggests how the findings can help start a conversation about the challenges faced and can contribute to the development of solutions for the population this group of respondents represents.

Recommendations for Governments and Employers
As people are living longer lives, business and government need to restructure their approach to later life planning. Failing to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach towards longevity will inevitably result in a significant portion of people retiring into poverty.
Recommendations are cover three key areas of work and retirement including quality of life, purpose and financial resilience.

Government

Facilitate upskilling of older workers and clamp down on ageism
Provide incentives for employers to offer more robust leave policies for caregiving needs
Explore the wider use of default auto-enrollment and default investment strategies to increase and maximize savings
Establish safety nets such as minimum pension levels provided by government
Enact enabling legislation to make all jobs flexible for longer-life working if desired and to accommodate all life-stage needs
Offer digital skills training and equipment to ensure equitable access to opportunities for all

Employers

Implement programmes offering support such as carers’ leave, information and advice for those who have caregiver responsibilities
Understand what impact the company’s retirement plan design has on the trajectory of retirement-readiness and labour flow – check if people can actually afford to retire
Provide flex-work programmes for caregivers, such as job-shares; allow part-time workers to contribute to defined contribution plans; provide training programmes for workforce re-entry, similar to those for early-career employees
Implement and review financial wellness programmes to:
- Cover specific life-stage needs that account for gender, cultural and ethnicity differences
- Consider personalized models to show the impact of different working arrangements and retirement ages on pay and pension
- Cater to low-income earners who are likely to need the most support saving and planning for retirement

Individuals can also reimagine what their longer lives might look like as the three-stage life of school, work and retirement makes way for a multi-stage life that could include lifelong learning, career breaks and new occupations in later life. This includes pursuing upskilling and reskilling opportunities, as well as prioritizing retirement and pension planning if possible.

Increasing longevity globally will require new innovations and solutions to address how people can stay financially resilient in a retirement that may be 20 years longer than their grandparents. With supportive actions from government and employers, individuals will have a chance to try new approaches to longer lives and reassess how they want to study, live, work, save and retire in ways that are different from what has been done in the past century. For the Silo, Madeleine Hillyer/World Economic Forum.

Philanthropy

Fundraising Survey Shows More Canadians Are Giving But Giving Less

September 16, 2019 The Silo 1 Comment

(Toronto, Ontario) Seven in ten Canadians have given to charity in 2018, and almost half of donors are open to different sorts of giving approaches than just the traditional solicitation letter, according to the 2018 What Canadian Donors Want Survey, conducted by the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) Foundation for Philanthropy – Canada in partnership with Ipsos.

The survey, which featured 1,500 Canadians age 18 or older, found that the percentage of people giving to charity in 2017 jumped by four points from the 2015 survey, returning to previous giving levels. Even as more Canadians are giving, they are giving less—an average of $772 cdn in 2017 compared to average giving levels of $924 cdn in 2015 and $726 cdn in 2013.

Eighty percent of donors give to more than one cause, with 23 percent giving to 4-5 charities and 13 percent supporting 6 or more causes. The top recipients of donations are social services and health charities—more Canadians (59% and 57%) gave to those causes than any other.

Overall, Canadians are more confident in the charitable sector than ever before, with nearly eight in ten respondents (78%) saying they’re confident in the organizations that comprise the charitable sector. That figure represents a five-point increase from 2015 and is significantly higher than confidence in the private sector (67%) or the public sector (60%).

Roger Ali Foundation for Philanthropy Canada

“Overall, the survey shows a Canadian population that is very supportive of the work of the country’s charities and a good understanding of how charities work to support communities,” said Roger Ali, CFRE, chair of the AFP Foundation for Philanthropy – Canada. “However, there are signs that donors are changing how they want to give and interact with charities, and the sector needs to understand and adapt to these changes so that we remain relevant to the people who support us and the people we serve.”

Changes in Volunteering, Giving Behavior

One troubling sign is a drop in volunteerism rates. According to the survey, one-third of Canadians volunteered their time to a charity or non-profit in the past 12 months and spent an average of 88 hours—down precipitously from 110 hours in 2015. “We’ll be watching this closely in our next survey to see if this is a one-time drop or a trend,” Ali added.

Canadians continue to change in how they want to be approached for donations. While 44% express a preference for traditional requests, such as mail, one quarter prefer a more personal approach like peer-to-peer contact or crowdfunding. Three in ten (31%) say they’re open to anything, having no specific preference.

Fundraising preferences vary significantly by age. Baby Boomers (54%) are the most likely to prefer being solicited through traditional requests, compared to Gen X’ers (43%) or Millennials (33%). By contrast, Millennials (17%) lead the way on crowdfunding, preferring this option to a greater extent than their Gen X (11%) or Boomer (5%) counterparts.

Perceptions of Charity Roles, Performance

Many underlying views on charities have remained relatively stable over time. Three-quarters of Canadians continue to agree that charities play an important role in society to address the needs not being met by the government, the public sector or the private sector. Majorities also believe that charities are trustworthy (61%) and act responsibly with the donations they receive (63%).

Canadians are more divided on how much charities spend on their programs and services vs. how much they spend on supplies, administration, salaries and fundraising. A growing majority (58%, up six percentage points from 2015) trust charities on how much they say they spend money on programs and overhead.

However, about a third of Canadians (34%, down 4 points) are less trusting, indicating that charities overstate how much they spend on the cause or programs (24%), or that charities are being intentionally misleading (10%). Yet, when presented with factors and asked how important each one is in evaluating a charity’s effectiveness, Canadians placed more emphasis on a charity’s ability to achieve its mission and create impact than managing its operation or its fundraising.

“Donors are looking for charities that create impact to change the world for the better,” said Lorelei Wilkinson, CFRE, chair of the AFP Foundation for Philanthropy – Canada Research Committee. “But it’s always clear that they keep a careful eye on administrative costs and a charity’s operations. The charitable sector needs to do a better job of explaining that overhead costs are essential for growth and sustainability —for things like equitable salaries, updated computer equipment, etc.— as part of being efficient with their use of donor dollars.”

Looking Ahead

Almost half of Canadians (46%) indicate that they are very likely to give in the next 12 months, while another one-third (34%) are somewhat likely to donate. However, 59% say they are also concerned about the economy, which may force them to reassess their giving plans.

A considerable number of Canadians (42%) proactively seek out information on the cause/charity and contact them to donate, while six in ten (58%) say the charity approaches them and they donate based on the information they receive. When looking for information on charities they support, Canadians continue to rely on online information (75%) as opposed to family, friends or colleagues (39%).

Social Media

The 2018 What Canadian Donors Want Survey also asked general questions about Canadians’ use of social media.

Similar to 2015, eight in 10 Canadians (81%) have a social media account. This applies across every age group, from 91% of Millennials through to 85% of Gen X’ers and 70% of Baby Boomers. Women (84%) are more likely than men (78%) to maintain at least one social media account.

Facebook dominates the Canadian social media landscape: three in four Canadians (75%) say they have a Facebook account, placing it well ahead of Twitter (29%), Instagram (28%), Reddit (5%) or other social media (13%).

Nearly two in ten Canadians on social media (18%) have donated to a charity in response to a request that came through their social media account. Millennials (23%) and Gen X Canadians (19%) are more likely than Baby Boomers (13%) to have made a charitable donation in response to a social media invitation or post.

“As generations age, we expect that email and social media will continue to become more prevalent in fundraising,” said Mary Bowyer, CFRE, member of the AFP Foundation for Philanthropy – Canada Research Committee. “For now, we’re seeing a blend of different approaches, and the most successful charities will be those who personalize their appeals based on what individual donors want, meaning a mix of mail, email, videos, Tweets and other communications.”

About the Survey

The 2018 What Canadian Donors Want Survey was based on a poll conducted between October 10 and October 17, 2017, on behalf of the AFP Foundation for Philanthropy – Canada. For this survey, a sample of 1,500 Canadians aged 18+ was interviewed. Weighting was then employed to balance demographics to ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the adult population according to Census data and to provide results intended to approximate the sample universe.

The precision of Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll is accurate to within ±2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had all Canadian adults been polled. The credibility interval will be wider among subsets of the population. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) is the largest international association of fundraising professionals in the world. AFP has over 33,000 members world-wide, with 3,800 in Canada. AFP promotes the importance and value of philanthropy, and enables people and organizations to practice ethical and effective fundraising. AFP Canada was formally created in 2017.

As the philanthropic arm of AFP, the AFP Foundation for Philanthropy – Canada supports many programs and services through its fundraising efforts. Fulfilling the promise of philanthropy by funding programs and services in the areas of research, diversity & inclusion, supporting the profession and leadership. To find out more, please visit www.afpnet.org.

Politics

Why Ontarians Continue Having Trouble Paying For Electricity

October 18, 2015 The Silo 22 Comments

[See Comments at the end of this article for updates Ed.] “All my pension goes to pay my electricity” – constituent. With Ontario boasting the highest energy prices in North America, quite honestly I don’t know how some people get by. When people bring their electricity bills into my office, it provides a line-by-line window on just how difficult it has become to pay the bills.

Recently I met with a couple who live in a modest 790 square foot house – they heat with one electric space heater, have been wearing heavy sweaters all winter and are doing absolutely everything they can to keep costs down. But their hydro bill for January was $641.67 — $233.89 of which was delivery charge. During the meeting I was told: “All my pension goes to pay my electricity.”

Nowadays if you can’t afford your electricity, in many cases, you don’t have the option of paying interest or getting caught up later – your service is simply shut off. To have service reconnected is often hundreds of dollars. If someone can’t afford their bills in the first place how will they ever be able to pay exorbitant fees for reconnection? Apart from closing down cheap coal generation, there are many reasons why hydro has skyrocketed.

For example, the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) Program pays out massive subsidies for wind and solar contracts to produce power we don’t need. This continues to drive up the cost of electricity which rose by 26 per cent between 2008 and 2010 – projected to rise another 46 per cent by the end of this year. The FIT Program, with its overly-generous payments, will cost taxpayers $4.4 billion more than the previous Standard Offer Program. Wind generators operate at 28 per cent capacity and their output is out of phase with electricity demand during certain times of the day.

You can’t store electricity, so we pay the U.S. and Quebec to take the surplus power off our hands. We’ve paid them $1.8 billion over the past six years. Their industries use this cheap power to compete even harder with our manufacturers, and so the downward spiral continues.

If you’re a large user, look for the words ‘Global Adjustment’ on your hydro bill. Simply put, Global Adjustment covers the spread between market price and guaranteed price paid to generators, plus the cost of paying standby natural gas plants not to produce electricity, as well as paying for conservation programs. One North Bay manufacturer had a Global Adjustment — nonexistent on their 2009 hydro bills — of $1,700 on their electricity charge of $1,400 for that month. The Global Adjustment is expected to increase tenfold, from $700 million in 2006 to $8.1 billion in 2014. This will certainly cause more Ontario manufacturers to close up shop and move to cheaper locales.

Also, watch for the Smart Meter charges to hit home. The computer system cost $250 million, and the bill is now due.

Let’s not forget the cancellation of the Oakville power plant and cancelling, demolishing and relocating the Mississauga power plant. These cancellations were nothing more than political ‘seat savers’ for the last election and will cost taxpayers $1.1 billion.

In many ways the Green Energy Act put the desires of the renewable power industry ahead of the needs of people and Ontario businesses – a perfect formula for killing jobs and crippling consumers. For the Silo, MPP Toby Barrett

DID YOU KNOW?- Norfolk Power (and in fact all Ontario Municipal power companies to the best of our knowledge-CP) has a 13 days past due policy for Service Termination Proceedings. Even small “ma and pa” businesses provide 30 day terms and even 60-90day terms before sending out Collection Letters or Warning Letters. We contacted Norfolk Power and were told that “it’s standard policy- set by Ontario’s Energy Board”. Hmmm- that sounded like a standard “sub-standard” explanation to us, so a bit of research showed that the Ontario Energy Board is a self-regulated, internally filled board that sounds impartial but is anything but- in fact we were unable to determine exactly who or how board positions are filled, never a good sign for impartiality. If you decide to call them at 416 481 1967 be ready for one of the most confusing answering services you will ever find. Messages prompt you with a never ending supply of websites and telephone numbers- finally if you are persistent enough you will be asked to “press 9” to consent for your personal information to be gathered, recorded and used by the Ontario Energy Board- not exactly consumer friendly. I suppose you could always speak with one of the Public Information Officer but then they will refer you to media relations. You won’t be transferred (we were told they aren’t allowed to) so keep a document open and handy- 416 544 5171 and then the process begins again only this time you are immediately connected with an answering machine asking for your credentials. *sigh Fifteen minutes later from when we started our initial inquiry we realized we might as well be prospecting for dare we say it “oil”. [Update- Many Municipal aka “County” Hydro companies including Norfolk Power have sold their electricity services to Hydro One but have held onto their Water services. Ontarians will now receive a separate bill for Water and a separate bill for electricity. Perhaps more confusing, in Spring of 2015 Ontario announced that it would sell 15% of its Hydro One holdings in an IPO plan that will eventually sell off another 45% in order to raise money for debt repayment, transportation and infrastructure programs. Targeted buyers would be Canada’s largest pension plans. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-16/ontario-to-sell-15-of-hydro-one-one-of-biggest-ipos Ed. ]

If you have the brain power – take a look at this excerpt from the Energy Board’s website- listing (in broad terms) changes to Ontario’s energy act- which ultimately affects consumers in Ontario and their payment and use of energy:

1907-1959
The Natural Gas and Oil Wells Act marked the Province’s early concern for the proper management of its energy resources – a concern that evolved through the Natural Gas Act of 1918, the Natural Gas Conservation Act of 1921 and the Ontario Fuel Board Act of 1954.
1960-1998
The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1960 created the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) as a successor to the Ontario Fuel Board. The OEB was authorized to set just and reasonable rates for the sale and storage of gas and to make orders granting leave to construct pipelines for the transmission of oil or gas to expropriate land for oil or gas pipes.The Ontario Energy Act, 1964 clarified certain powers of the OEB and strengthened the sections dealing with gas storage. An amendment to this Act in 1965 set out the ground rules for the OEB in determining the rate base of gas utilities and giving the OEB power to make regulations prescribing a uniform system of accounts for gas companies.On June 7, 1973, the Premier announced the establishment of the Ministry of Energy which would include the OEB. Further amendments were made to the Ontario Energy Board Act which included provisions for the appointment of additional board members and making the OEB responsible for annual reviews of rate and rate-related matters of Ontario Hydro.In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the oil crisis developed in the Middle East, causing natural gas prices to soar. Ontario Hydro turned to nuclear generation and the public became conservation conscious. During that time, the Board decided on hundreds of natural gas applications and conducted major reviews of Ontario Hydro rates.
1998
The mandate of the Board changed significantly with the passage of the Energy Competition Act, 1998 (ECA) The ultimate goal of the ECA was the creation of a competitive market in the electricity and natural gas industries.To achieve the goal of creating a competitive market in the electricity industry, the former Ontario Hydro monopoly was replaced by several business entities including two distinct commercial companies, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Hydro One Inc., and one Crown corporation, the Independent Electricity Market Operator, now known as the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). OPG has taken responsibility for the generation of electricity while Hydro One owns and maintains transmission and distribution wires. The IESO manages the province’s electricity system and operates the wholesale electricity market. The OEB had varying degrees of regulatory authority over all three corporations as well as the province’s municipal electric utilities.The OEB became responsible for regulating local distribution companies and for ensuring that the distribution companies fulfill their obligations to connect and serve their customers. The OEB also became responsible for licensing certain participants in the market. The OEB regulated all market participants in the province’s natural gas and electricity industries and it provided advice on energy matters referred to it by the Minister of Energy and/or the Minister of Natural Resources.
2002
On May 1, 2002, Ontario’s new electricity market opened. The new market was the culmination of over five years of work by the electricity industry, government, the OEB, the IESO and many other market participants. The generation of electricity became a competitive activity, with electricity bought and sold on the new spot market at competitive prices. The IESO successfully began operating the wholesale market.Over the summer of 2002, record-high temperatures drove up the demand for electricity as well as the market price, which resulted in considerable consumer concern. In response, the government introduced the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply Act, 2002. This legislation, which received Royal Assent on December 9, 2002, capped the price of electricity at 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour for residential, small-business and other designated low-volume consumers, effective May 1, 2002 to May 1, 2006. This legislation also provided refunds, retroactive to May 1, 2002, to compensate those consumers for any costs in excess of the 4.3-cent cap.All transmission and distribution rates were frozen at existing levels until at least May 1, 2006. Utilities were required to receive written approval from the Minister of Energy before any application for rate changes could be submitted to the OEB. This legislation also deemed any interim rate order to be final. In addition, the new legislation modified the OEB’s objectives in the areas of energy efficiency and conservation with respect to both natural gas and electricity from “facilitating” to “promoting.”
2003
Proclaimed on August 1, 2003, the Ontario Energy Board Consumer Protection and Governance Act, 2003, established the new OEB as a self-financing crown corporation and gave the OEB the opportunity to do its work more efficiently and effectively. In particular, the legislation provided for a management committee to manage the activities of the OEB. The legislation further enhanced the OEB’s role in protecting and educating energy consumers.In December 2003, the government introduced the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act (Electricity Pricing), 2003, which put in place a new interim electricity pricing structure, replacing the 4.3 cent per kilowatt hour (kWh) price cap as of April 1, 2004. Under the interim structure, residential, low-volume and other designated consumers paid 4.7 cents per kWh for the first 750 kWh consumed per month, and 5.5 cents per kWh for consumption above that level.The Act called on the OEB to develop a new electricity pricing mechanism. It also charged the OEB with the responsibility to protect and renew Ontario’s electricity grid by ensuring reasonable charges for the delivery of electricity.The legislation also required the OEB to allow local distribution companies to recoup costs (called “regulatory assets”), the recovery of which had been put on hold in 2002 by the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply Act, 2002. These recoveries would be spread over a four-year period so that they would have only a modest impact on the final price to consumers.
2004
In June 2004, the Government of Ontario proposed a restructuring of the province’s electricity sector in order to encourage new electricity supply, energy conservation and stable prices at a level reflecting the true cost of electricity.The Electricity Restructuring Act, 2004, received Royal Assent on December 9, 2004. The new legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and the Electricity Act, 1998.The OEB became responsible for developing a transparent mechanism for establishing electricity commodity prices for eligible consumers who have not signed contracts with electricity retailers. The Regulated Price Plan, which took effect May 1, 2005, replaced the interim two-tier pricing of 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour (¢/kWh) and 5.5 ¢/kWh hour that had been in place since April 2004.The OEB also assumed responsibility for the Market Surveillance Panel, previously the responsibility of the IESO.A new agency, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), was established to ensure an adequate, reliable and secure supply of electricity in Ontario for the medium and long term. The OEB was given the duty of approving the OPA’s fees and its integrated power system plan and procurement process. The OEB is also responsible for licensing the OPA.
2009
The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 received Royal Assent on May 14, 2009. Among other things, the legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and the Electricity Act, 1998. It established important responsibilities for the OEB and other entities in achieving the objectives of conservation, promotion of renewable generation, and technological innovation through the smart grid.The OEB’s three new objectives are: The promotion of renewable energy, including the timely connection of renewable energy projects to transmission and distribution systems; The promotion of conservation and demand management; and The facilitation of the implementation of a smart grid. The OEB has an important role to play in ensuring the government’s objectives in the legislation are achieved. That includes ensuring that electricity distributors meet the requirements for renewable generation connection, smart grid implementation and conservation and demand management.
2010
In 2010, Ontario passed the Energy Consumer Protection Act, that would ensure Ontarians have the information they need about electricity contracts and bills, as well as the comfort of knowing they can rely on fair business practices. The new rules come into effect in January 2011.

Silo reader “Jack” sent us this scan of his hydro bill- over 500$ for two months of service for a small 2 Bedroom basement apartment. Notice that he was unable to pay his bill on time due to the fact that his bill accounted for almost 50% of his rent.

Employers

Canada's 'biggest little blogspace'