Lina Ko February 23rd, 2009
With the recent stock market reality, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund has reported a $10 billion loss in their last report, and that caused a lot of anxiety among baby boomers who are thinking of retirement. According to The Toronto Star, the official maximum government retirement payment is $884.58 per month, and the average payment in 2007 was just $481.46 a month. Part of the problem has to do with the fact that the CPP was designed in 1966, and it’s a very different world out there now.
Leading-edge boomers just simply have to delay their retirement plans since a lot of them have probably lost half of their investment income. Trailing-edge boomers (those in their 40s) are not much better off either because they are worried that by the time when they arrive at retirement age well after millions of other baby boomers, they fear the CPP Investment Fund will be dry. The Star predicted that while it’s unlikely any federal government would let the Investment Fund dwindle that low, many admit that plans must be made for the huge numbers of retiring boomers.
Michael Ignatieff, federal Liberal leader, has said that this would be the largest withdrawal of labour from the Canadian workforce in history and the largest withdrawal of CPP funds. “It is past time we found a resolution to this issue,” he said. As I’ve said many times before in this blog, most boomers wouldn’t need nearly as much money once they retire as they do now. However, if boomers want to maintain their quality of life, they should consult a financial planner on how to weather the current storm and still maximize their investment.
Lina Ko February 17th, 2009
It seems at long last that the fashion industry is getting it – you need boomer models to appeal to boomer consumers! According to The Globe and Mail, 50-year-old Madonna is donning the ads for Louis Vuitton; 52-year-old Jerry Hall is the new face of Chanel; 50-year-old Twiggy is the model for Marks & Spencer; Helena Christensen, in her late 40s, is modelling underwear for Agent Provocateur. The list goes on and on – Ines de la Fresange, a former Lagerfeld muse, just walked the Paris haute couture runways at 51. On TV, former models Cheryl Tiegs (61) and Iman (54) are appearing as hosts and guest judges on shows such as True Beauty and Project Runway. At 42, Cindy Crawford touts her own line of furnishings and 40-year-old Jennifer Aniston was the recent cover girl for GQ magazine.
With the demographic reality of an ageing population, this makes sense as the fashion industry realizes that the disposable pounds, euros and dollars lie in the pockets of a much older age group. Of course, we need to remember that older women now look better – so most mature women models are now proud to let people know their age. The biggest satisfaction for older women boomers must be J. Crew’s recent accomplishments – donning senior citizen Lauren Hutton as its 2009 spring cover girl – and, at the same time, supported by U.S. first lady Michelle Obama and her daughters. Who thought J. Crew can be cool again?
Lina Ko February 6th, 2009
Having always said that the old 60s are the new 40s, I’m questioning whether leading-edge boomers (late 50s or early 60s) should really start having babies.
A 60-year-old Calgary woman was recently in the news because at this age, she just gave birth to twin boys and is one of the oldest women to give birth in Canadian history. After 43 years of trying to have children but without much success, Ranjit Hayer went to India twice for in-vitro fertilization after being told by doctors in Calgary that she was too old to become a parent. As a younger couple, the Hayers tried for decades to conceive naturally, enduring three miscarriages. In Canada, Hayer underwent surgery, reportedly after a doctor diagnosed a problem with her womb, but was still unable to carry a child to term.
According to The Toronto Star, Hayer’s age and her decision to seek in-vitro fertilization abroad and become pregnant after she was refused treatment in this country have raised ethical questions in minds of Canada’s medical community. Her own obstetrician, Dr. Colin Birch, voiced doubts telling the CBC that he couldn’t reconcile himself with the idea of a 60-year-old woman getting in-vitro treatment. “Sixty is not an optimal time to be gestating an offspring, not to mention caring for an offspring,” said Juliet Guichon, who teaches bioethics at University of Calgary’s faculty of medicine.
Having babies naturally is really God’s gift to mankind. But receiving in-vitro fertilization is capitalizing on science and medical advancements to make a long-time wish for would-be parents to come true. There’s nothing wrong with this since I know many determined couples who are now great parents thanks to this treatment. It’s challenging for women over 50 years old to receive in-vitro fertilization here in Canada because according to the medical community, there could be a lot of health implications for older women. There’s also the ethical issue of how long can the parents live to provide for their young children.
Boomers feel younger than their age, even for leading-edge boomers. However, before fulfilling their life-long dreams to have babies at 60, parents should first plan ahead for providing for their kids when they are growing up including their financial well being and education. It is irresponsible just to focus only on their desire to have children without thinking about the future of the kid(s). For a 60-year-old first-time mother, her child will be at university when she hits 80. Between 60 and 80, it is a long life stage for all of us to go through without any perils!