Credit cards are feeding young Canadians more than actual food; As wages stagnate and rent soars, debt becomes the only thing they can afford
TIL Creatives With the cost of living outpacing incomes, a growing number of young Canadians are turning to debt to cover daily basics
As the cost of living continues to rise and job prospects remain uncertain, an increasing number of young Canadians are finding themselves ensnared in a cycle of debt they struggle to escape.Recent data from Equifax Canada reveals a troubling trend, individuals aged 18 to 25 have experienced a 15.1 percent increase in delinquency rates compared to the previous year. Specifically, 90-day or more delinquencies on credit cards for this age group have surged by 21.7 percent, reaching a delinquency rate of 5.38 percent, significantly higher than the overall population's rate of 3.76 percent.
Also Read: Canada's economy grows by only 1 percent in 2025, unemployment hits 7 percent
"Being able to balance the cost of living with debt levels is more difficult and more challenging, which is why through the numbers we are seeing that stress come through," said Kathy Catsiliras, vice-president of analytical consulting for Equifax Canada. "They are finding it more challenging to stay current on their debt obligation, married with the fact we're seeing unemployment rates increase."
Canada's unemployment rate rose to 6.9 percent in April, according to Statistics Canada. This uptick in unemployment, coupled with stagnant wages, has left many young Canadians without sufficient income to manage their debts.
Consequently, some are resorting to credit cards or loans to cover essential expenses like food and rent.
The challenges are further compounded by a stagnating job market, partly attributed to the ongoing trade tensions with the United States. Due to President Donald Trump's tariff policies, some companies have had to scale back hiring plans or lay off employees.Shannon Terrell, a personal finance expert with NerdWallet, highlighted the multifaceted pressures facing young Canadians:"All of these factors combined can definitely make for a challenging financial situation in which your credit card is being used to bridge the gap, especially if you're someone who's living paycheque to paycheque," she said.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that many young individuals are new to credit and may lack the financial literacy to manage it effectively. Matt Fabian, TransUnion Canada's director of financial services research and consulting, noted:"They're getting used to the fact if they charge a lot, those payments go up and they're going to owe a balance. Some of them, they're able to adapt and do just fine. Some of them, it's a bit of trial by fire, so we do see sometimes heightened delinquency."However, Fabian also pointed out a silver lining:"We do see a high 'cure' rate, however, with youth who may have a 'trip and fall' eventually understanding how debt works and not missing payments."A TransUnion Canada report showed youth are among two groups driving up the total debt of Canadians, with the group seeing their outstanding balances grow by 30.6 percent compared to the previous year.Financial experts suggest that young Canadians facing debt challenges should consider developing a debt repayment strategy, exploring options like balance transfer credit cards or debt consolidation loans, and seeking guidance from financial advisors. Budgeting is also crucial; ensuring that one can afford more than the minimum payment can prevent interest from accumulating and making debt repayment more difficult.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
‘We can't trade with countries firing missiles': Trump again claims credit for avoiding ‘nuclear disaster' between India and Pakistan
— ANI (@ANI) Live Events India rejects Trump's version: "No trade talks involved" Operation Sindoor: What forced Pakistan to the table Strategic clarity, not outside influence (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel US President Donald Trump on Friday repeated his assertion that he prevented a war between India and Pakistan, stating that his intervention helped avoid a nuclear disaster. Speaking from the Oval Office during an event marking Elon Musk's departure from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump said the United States used trade pressure as leverage to halt the escalating conflict.'We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting,' Trump said. 'I believe that could have turned into a nuclear disaster, and I want to thank the leaders of India and Pakistan, and I want to thank my people. Also, we talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons. They're great leaders in those countries, and they understood and they agreed.'He further added, 'We are stopping others from fighting also, because ultimately, we can fight better than anybody. We have the greatest military in the world. We have the greatest leaders in the world.'Trump's comments have reignited debate about the extent of US influence in the recent India-Pakistan de-escalation. The claim was echoed by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in a legal filing, where he said Trump used emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariff-related measures for national is not the first time Trump has made this claim. Last week, during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit, Trump had again said he 'settled' the conflict through trade however, has rejected the US president's account. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) clarified that the decision to cease hostilities came solely through military-level discussions, without any mention of trade or tariffs.'Our position on this particular issue that you mentioned has been well articulated,' said MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'From the time Operation Sindoor commenced on May 7 till the understanding on cessation of firing and military action on May 10, there were conversations between Indian and US leaders on the evolving military situation. The issue of trade or tariff did not come up in any of those discussions.'Jaiswal also reaffirmed that the ceasefire was reached through 'direct contact with the DGMOs of India and Pakistan.'External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, speaking to the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, also dismissed the notion of foreign intervention. When asked if the world should thank the US, Jaishankar responded: 'The cessation of firing was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact. The morning before, we effectively hit and incapacitated Pakistan's main airbases and air defence system. So, who should I thank for the cessation of hostilities? I thank the Indian military because it was the Indian military action that made Pakistan say: We are ready to stop.'India launched Operation Sindoor after a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on 22 April that killed 26 civilians. The operation began on 7 May, targeting terror camps operated by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK).The strikes were carried out with high precision, damaging at least nine known terror launch pads. Over 100 militants were reportedly killed in the first two days. India also retaliated to cross-border aggression by striking Pakistani airbases, reportedly incapacitating their key situation escalated rapidly with both countries exchanging drone and missile strikes. But on 10 May, the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries reached an understanding to halt all land, air, and sea was this agreement, forged between uniformed military officials on either side, that brought the active conflict to a Trump has repeatedly stated that trade was used as a bargaining chip to stop the hostilities, Indian officials maintain that the decision was entirely independent and based on ground firm rejection of Trump's narrative highlights a broader diplomatic message—that strategic autonomy remains central to Indian foreign policy. Despite close ties with the United States, decisions on military actions and ceasefires are made in New Delhi, not divergence in narratives underscores the differing worldviews between the two countries. Where Trump portrays himself as the global peacemaker using economic might, India stresses operational control, national security priorities, and the professionalism of its armed when the dust settled, it was a conversation between generals—not presidents—that turned the tide.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘We can't trade with countries firing missiles': Trump again claims credit for avoiding ‘nuclear disaster' between India and Pakistan
US President Donald Trump on Friday repeated his assertion that he prevented a war between India and Pakistan, stating that his intervention helped avoid a nuclear disaster. Speaking from the Oval Office during an event marking Elon Musk's departure from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump said the United States used trade pressure as leverage to halt the escalating conflict. 'We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting,' Trump said. 'I believe that could have turned into a nuclear disaster, and I want to thank the leaders of India and Pakistan, and I want to thank my people. Also, we talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons. They're great leaders in those countries, and they understood and they agreed.' — ANI (@ANI) Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo He further added, 'We are stopping others from fighting also, because ultimately, we can fight better than anybody. We have the greatest military in the world. We have the greatest leaders in the world.' Trump's comments have reignited debate about the extent of US influence in the recent India-Pakistan de-escalation. The claim was echoed by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in a legal filing, where he said Trump used emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariff-related measures for national security. Live Events This is not the first time Trump has made this claim. Last week, during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit, Trump had again said he 'settled' the conflict through trade diplomacy. India rejects Trump's version: "No trade talks involved" India, however, has rejected the US president's account. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) clarified that the decision to cease hostilities came solely through military-level discussions, without any mention of trade or tariffs. 'Our position on this particular issue that you mentioned has been well articulated,' said MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'From the time Operation Sindoor commenced on May 7 till the understanding on cessation of firing and military action on May 10, there were conversations between Indian and US leaders on the evolving military situation. The issue of trade or tariff did not come up in any of those discussions.' Jaiswal also reaffirmed that the ceasefire was reached through 'direct contact with the DGMOs of India and Pakistan.' External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, speaking to the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, also dismissed the notion of foreign intervention. When asked if the world should thank the US, Jaishankar responded: 'The cessation of firing was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact. The morning before, we effectively hit and incapacitated Pakistan's main airbases and air defence system. So, who should I thank for the cessation of hostilities? I thank the Indian military because it was the Indian military action that made Pakistan say: We are ready to stop.' Operation Sindoor: What forced Pakistan to the table India launched Operation Sindoor after a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on 22 April that killed 26 civilians. The operation began on 7 May, targeting terror camps operated by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). The strikes were carried out with high precision, damaging at least nine known terror launch pads. Over 100 militants were reportedly killed in the first two days. India also retaliated to cross-border aggression by striking Pakistani airbases, reportedly incapacitating their key installations. The situation escalated rapidly with both countries exchanging drone and missile strikes. But on 10 May, the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries reached an understanding to halt all land, air, and sea hostilities. It was this agreement, forged between uniformed military officials on either side, that brought the active conflict to a close. Strategic clarity, not outside influence While Trump has repeatedly stated that trade was used as a bargaining chip to stop the hostilities, Indian officials maintain that the decision was entirely independent and based on ground realities. India's firm rejection of Trump's narrative highlights a broader diplomatic message—that strategic autonomy remains central to Indian foreign policy. Despite close ties with the United States, decisions on military actions and ceasefires are made in New Delhi, not Washington. The divergence in narratives underscores the differing worldviews between the two countries. Where Trump portrays himself as the global peacemaker using economic might, India stresses operational control, national security priorities, and the professionalism of its armed forces. And when the dust settled, it was a conversation between generals—not presidents—that turned the tide.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
"We don't want students causing trouble": Trump on tussle with Harvard University
US President Donald Trump remain adamant on restricting Harvard University 's ability to enroll foreign students, stating that he doesn't want "students who are causing trouble" in the country. Trump also highlighted the administration's tussle with Harvard University over the funding of the institution. "We want students, I want foreign students here... Our country has given Harvard $5 billion plus over a short period of time. Nobody knew that; we found that out. I wouldn't say that was a DOGE thing," Trump said. "We ended up in litigation for other reasons because they're very anti-semitic. And in finding out and in going through the books, we found out that the country gave them $5 billion plus, much more than that, actually, and we're having it out with them, and let's see what happens. It's a very sad case. It's a case we win. We can't lose that case because we have the right to make grants. We're not going to make any grants like that, but I don't think Harvard has been acting very nicely," he added. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) The dispute escalated after the Trump administration moved to block Harvard University from enrolling international students, leading to a legal battle. Live Events Earlier, Trump advocated that the institution should cap the number of foreign students it admits at 15 per cent. In a fiery remark against Harvard University, Trump suggested that many foreign nationals admitted by Harvard are "troublemakers", disrupting the country. "We don't want to see shopping centres explode. We don't want to see the kind of riots that you had," he added. Stating that Harvard University admits almost 31 percent of foreign students which some are from "areas of the world that are very radicalised", Trump said, "Why would 31 percent? Why would a number be so big? I think they (Harvard University) should have a cap of maybe around 15 per cent. We have people that want to go to Harvard and other schools but they can't get in because we have foreign students there." "I want to make sure that foreign students are people that can love our country. We don't want to see shopping centres explode. We don't want to see the kind of riots that you had, and I'll tell you what, many of those students didn't go anywhere, many of those students were troublemakers caused by the radical left." Trump added. A federal judge had temporarily halted the Trump administration's ban after Harvard University filed a suit in federal court. Harvard argued revocation of its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program was "clear retaliation" for its refusal of the government's ideologically rooted policy demands.
