|
Lexicon posted:Hell, the UK even went so far as to import Mark Carney to run the Bank of England. Guess what Britain just got into the business of doing? A treasured Canadian practice - guaranteeing mortgages! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/help-to-buy-mortgage-guarantee-launches-today Yeah I remember reading a article about how after 2009 many Eurozone countries decided it would be great to copy the US system where the government ends up guaranteeing mortgages. It would reduce loan rates on the positive but on the negative side just ignore all the scary stuff from 2009. etalian fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 14, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:It seems to be an "Anglosphere" problem. Us, the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand - they are all loving obsessed about property ownership. Paris, Moscow and Hong Kong of course famously known for their reasonable attitude around property ownership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It is my firm belief that the Vancouver nuttiness will only be solved by real estate becoming its own undoing. Well yeah. Like I said, the cure will in some ways hurt more than the disease, so it is politically more palatable to just let the patient die on their own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Paris, Moscow and Hong Kong of course famously known for their reasonable attitude around property ownership. I didn't say exclusively Anglosphere. These [global] cities are obviously very expensive. My point is that a nationwide fixation on property ownership, and indeed, rampant, and arguably-inappropriate incentives for property ownership, is a thing that the English-speaking countries have in common.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Wynand, the obsession with Vancouver real estate was in full gear as far back as the 80s and 90s. Prices have gone through at least two bubbles and collapses. It's been mentioned in this thread but I encourage you to talk to some baby boomers about home ownership in the lower mainland on the 80s. Ask them what happened to their friends or themselves when the market collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Happy thanksgiving bros
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Wynand, the obsession with Vancouver real estate was in full gear as far back as the 80s and 90s. Prices have gone through at least two bubbles and collapses. It's been mentioned in this thread but I encourage you to talk to some baby boomers about home ownership in the lower mainland on the 80s. Ask them what happened to their friends or themselves when the market collapsed. The most aggravating part of talking to peers about house prices is the "never goes down" mantra. I mean, I've seen two spectular bubble pops here and I am not that old. I remember house auctions for $1 not being successful in the 80s crash. I always wonder how high my friends were in the 80s and 90s. (I am guessing very since I noticed.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It seems to be an "Anglosphere" problem. Us, the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand - they are all loving obsessed about property ownership. It's very useful to remember that "the middle class" started out as people who were landed but not aristocracy. You know, the people who were in the middle: between the sin-swilling plebs and the God-ordaned blue-bloods; those people who had to be respected due to their economic power but who still didn't have royal ties. You were middle class if you owned land, something that traditionally belonged only to the crown, those it favored and their descendants. The middle class lived in the country, away from the dirty The modern descendant of the country estate is the suburban home. It's a rump of what it used to be, but there it is. Anglo societies still remember: if you want to be middle class, you gotta own land. Personally, I think its bullshit and have no intent on buying real estate unless it makes overwhelming economic sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:I remember house auctions for $1 not being successful in the 80s crash. Seriously? ductonius posted:It's very useful to remember that "the middle class" started out as people who were landed but not aristocracy. You know, the people who were in the middle: between the sin-swilling plebs and the God-ordaned blue-bloods; those people who had to be respected due to their economic power but who still didn't have royal ties. You were middle class if you owned land, something that traditionally belonged only to the crown, those it favored and their descendants. The middle class lived in the country, away from the dirty That does make sense, but it's interesting that it's very true in Britain, but not France or Switzerland for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:That does make sense, but it's interesting that it's very true in Britain, but not France or Switzerland for example. I would guess it may have something to do with the relative survival rate of English monarchs vs. their respective French cousins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I didn't say exclusively Anglosphere. These [global] cities are obviously very expensive. I know you didn't, but I don't see it as even just disproportionately anglo either. A whole lot of eastern europe went through or is still going through property bubbles. I know for a fact the attitude in Romania was much the same as here (it's smart to own, at any price, can't go down, etc). IIRC all EU PIIGS went through it as well. China and SE Asia are also going nuts apparently but I'm less familiar with that. What they have in common is pretty much the same thing that happened here: influx of credit, proximity to wealthy buyers crowded out of their home markets (in the EU that would be the Germans rather than the Chinese of course). Writing this off as a cultural thing is somewhat harmful because it frames it as some intractable "we did this to ourselves" issue that can't really be addressed through government. We didn't and it isn't. This was a credit issue first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
ductonius posted:I would guess it may have something to do with the relative survival rate of English monarchs vs. their respective French cousins. Huh? If I recall my history, the monarchs decapitated by plebs score is 1-1 between England and France. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure that there's anything special about the Anglo/Commonwealth nations. We seem to be somewhere in the middle of the home ownership scale. Interestingly, it's mostly former Communist nations at the top of the scale (Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, China), though there are definitely some exceptions. You even have weird trends that really can't be explained culturally, e.g. France and the Netherlands both have quite low home ownership (55%), while Belgium, which sits between them geographically and culturally, has a very high home ownership (78%). That said, Canada, Australia, the US, the UK, and New Zealand certainly do cluster (at about 65%-69%).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Wynand, the obsession with Vancouver real estate was in full gear as far back as the 80s and 90s. Prices have gone through at least two bubbles and collapses. It's been mentioned in this thread but I encourage you to talk to some baby boomers about home ownership in the lower mainland on the 80s. Ask them what happened to their friends or themselves when the market collapsed. I was indeed not here during the 80s, but going by all the pricing charts I've seen that was a whole order of magnitude less of a "bubble" then what we are seeing now. As I understand it there was a lot of weird demand drummed up by Expo, but that was the end of it. I've gently caress all idea how credit was like in the 80s though. I know a fair bit of Reaganomics bled through to Canada, but did that translate to laxer mortgage terms? Was it even the CMHA back then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Seriously? I was a kid, but I remember watching a news piece after the pop where houses up for auction went no bid (not even $1). That said, it was 30 years ago so there may have been good reasons to not want those houses at any price. It stuck with me though, so I find it pretty hilarious when people try to say the houses are always worth more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
ductonius posted:It's very useful to remember that "the middle class" started out as people who were landed but not aristocracy. You know, the people who were in the middle: between the sin-swilling plebs and the God-ordaned blue-bloods; those people who had to be respected due to their economic power but who still didn't have royal ties. You were middle class if you owned land, something that traditionally belonged only to the crown, those it favored and their descendants. The middle class lived in the country, away from the dirty I hate to keep posting all these Mr. Negative Contrarian posts, but I really don't think that has anything to do with anything. The middle class in North America is made up of immigrants whose family background is largely going to have been farming, maybe mining and later factory work. You could say that maybe they aspired to the ideal of the higher classes they saw, but they owned expansive country houses and lavish town houses alike (as well as anything else worth owning). The suburban "American Dream" home was overwhelmingly just pushed by the auto industry (together with the dismantling of mass transit and the buildup of highways). Ownership via mortgage specifically needed no specific "pushing" - it actually honest-to-god was a better way to pay for your housing and save up for retirement if you had the discipline to save up all that exciting young adulthood money for a down payment instead of just spending it as you go. This whole trope about renting for all your life being a mistake made by people lacking in wisdom, discipline or some other character had a real basis to it not too long ago at all! The same narrative played out in Europe as well despite a lack of suburban sprawl. (Save up for your apartment/townhouse/whatever instead!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Writing this off as a cultural thing is somewhat harmful because it frames it as some intractable "we did this to ourselves" issue that can't really be addressed through government. We didn't and it isn't. This was a credit issue first and foremost. I would love to be wrong about this, but I absolutely do see this as a [relatively recent] cultural thing first and foremost. In my opinion, the credit and official incentivizing policies flow from that (i.e. vote buying), not the other way round. The government seems to be doing its absolute hardest to discourage people from binging on credit, so I guess we have an interesting natural experiment underway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I would love to be wrong about this, but I absolutely do see this as a [relatively recent] cultural thing first and foremost. In my opinion, the credit and official incentivizing policies flow from that (i.e. vote buying), not the other way round. It really is more "law selling" than "vote buying" IMO. Sure people like cheap credit but it's not exactly something you see clamoring for as an election platform. My impression is that most people look at credit as something that you can fail, not something you are failed by. It's part and parcel of the post-80s economic narrative. A lot of this crap is very overtly being pushed by the real estate industry at the municipal level. It is being less overtly pushed at the federal level by much larger interests, like banks and established investors. As for the breaks government is finally applying, I've gone off on this before, but my theory is that government does not want to actually trigger a drop in pricing, they may deem it best to just let it flatline at the current levels (and I'm not even sure I disagree). If prices go up again (in year over year terms) like they just did in September (was it?) for longer than a year or so and the CMHC doesn't tighten terms further I'm going to very surprised and start eating a lot of my past words. If prices go up and the CMHC does tighten the terms and prices continue to go up I will be both bewildered and worried. If prices stay at this level I will be least surprised or worried. If prices go down and the CMHC doesn't respond (or can't - and I think that could easily be the case) I'm going to be feeling smug as gently caress but also very worried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Having said all that though, I am also starting to question whether a pricing collapse really would be that devastating compared to the ongoing economic damage cause by having so much of potential spending be swallowed up by mortgage payments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Having said all that though, I am also starting to question whether a pricing collapse really would be that devastating compared to the ongoing economic damage cause by having so much of potential spending be swallowed up by mortgage payments. It's not. Look at consumer debt levels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Whoooo boy. When vancouverites start to realize that they need to pay off their credit cards poo poo is gonna get real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Was it even the CMHA back then? The CMHC was formed post WWII to help returning veterans purchase housing. Since the purpose of *every* organization is to perpetuate its own existence, it now does all manner of activity far removed from this original mandate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Whoooo boy. When vancouverites start to realize that they need to pay off their credit cards poo poo is gonna get real. Yeah the over troublesome stat is how Canadian debt levels such as HELOC and crediti cards soured in this bubble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
This is great. Condo builders need to hire tradesmen from Ireland. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-construction-firms-seek-workers-in-ireland-1.2055587
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
The Economist Who Just Won a Nobel Prize Thinks Owning a Home Is a Terrible Investment I kind of which the article were more substantial with the details, but there ya go, something to throw at your "BUYING IS ALWAYS A GOOD INVESTMENT" relatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
Oh cool I hadn't heard that Shiller won the Nobel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:The Economist Who Just Won a Nobel Prize Thinks Owning a Home Is a Terrible Investment Problem is - the general public doesn't have any particular respect for academic opinions or their fancy awards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is great. Condo builders need to hire tradesmen from Ireland. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-construction-firms-seek-workers-in-ireland-1.2055587 People burned by a bubble help build a bubble in another country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is great. Condo builders need to hire tradesmen from Ireland. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-construction-firms-seek-workers-in-ireland-1.2055587 From that article: only one in 32 high school graduates is pursuing a career in the trades, when they need one in five to fill the gap.. I find that very hard to believe, especially considering the meme is well and truly out there that "university is for suckers, trades be where the fat stacks at". Call me a cynic - but that sounds like some propaganda to grease the Temporary-Foreign-Worker wheels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
The problem is that none of these companies actually want to train people who go into the trades. They'd rather hire someone with full experience out of country than set up an apprenticeship program or provide the necessary training for a 20 year old welder with a college certificate. There's no incentive for kids to get into the trades because no one will want to hire someone who has no experience. The government is starting to step in to provide that experience but these companies whining about the lack of Canadian tradespeople are part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Why bother training people to do anything when it's more expedient to simply build up your consumer economy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Over the last 10 years or so this "university is for idiots, get rich in trades!!" meme has been in full force and so far I've seen: 3 friends get into carpentry. They went to carpentry school or what ever, got their tickets, couldn't get jobs because "not enough experience sorry no time to train". One recently moved to Vancouver hoping to get work there, gets VERY infrequent work. 2 friends get into electrical. After quite a lot of school and some apprenticing it still took them years to get their foot in the door. Everyone wanted someone with like 5+ years experience. 2 friends that went into plumbing. One totally gave up fairly shortly being unable to find any work or even someone willing to apprentice with, the other now has a "day job" to support him self while he sometimes does the very odd plumbing here and there. Once again, everyone wants someone with many years experience. 1 friend who's actually a pretty experienced concrete/form guy that still has lots of trouble finding work. He says his problem is that he's too experienced and sites want idiots they can under-pay and don't know the rules. Lately he's been taking really lovely jobs that aren't paying him nearly what he's worth, while at the same time the sites are often under-manned. Pure anecdotes but I really get the sense "the industry" is so loving cheap and greedy they refuse to both train up newer workers while at the same time refuse to pay for experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Go West, young man. ... Then when you get to Calgary, go North.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Hell, the UK even went so far as to import Mark Carney to run the Bank of England. Guess what Britain just got into the business of doing? A treasured Canadian practice - guaranteeing mortgages! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/help-to-buy-mortgage-guarantee-launches-today To be fair, Carney had absolutely nothing to do with that policy - it's entirely down to our wonderful Tory government. For some reason, everyone who is not part of that government thinks it's a loving insane idea in a housing market that's already grossly overheated, but Dave and Gideon aren't going to let trifling distractions like that stop them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:To be fair, Carney had absolutely nothing to do with that policy - it's entirely down to our wonderful Tory government. For some reason, everyone who is not part of that government thinks it's a loving insane idea in a housing market that's already grossly overheated, but Dave and Gideon aren't going to let trifling distractions like that stop them. The UK is a interesting example of how the subsidized social housing concept eventually got replaced by a US style home ownership craze thanks to Thatcher era policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:To be fair, Carney had absolutely nothing to do with that policy - it's entirely down to our wonderful Tory government. For some reason, everyone who is not part of that government thinks it's a loving insane idea in a housing market that's already grossly overheated, but Dave and Gideon aren't going to let trifling distractions like that stop them. Have they said anything approaching sentient thought about why they want to do this? I haven't ever heard anyone express why it's apparently a good idea to allow banks to extend credit with zero downside risk. .... especially after we just went through a financial crisis caused by allowing banks to extend credit with zero downside risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
etalian posted:The UK is a interesting example of how [functional working public good] eventually got replaced by a US style [neo-liberal privatization] craze thanks to Thatcher era policies. Fixed. The entire UK should be seen as a dire warning for these sort of policies, yet it's not, and people in the UK still actually vote tory. Humans are doomed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
etalian posted:The UK is a interesting example of how the subsidized social housing concept eventually got replaced by a US style home ownership craze thanks to Thatcher era policies.  Lexicon posted:Have they said anything approaching sentient thought about why they want to do this? I haven't ever heard anyone express why it's apparently a good idea to allow banks to extend credit with zero downside risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The entire justification is "people can't afford houses", with an implicit subtext of "...and house prices cannot ever be allowed to fall so that they come back into line with incomes". So instead of a correction in the market, we get a new and bigger bubble that will burst the instant interest rates rise from their current rock bottom levels. Well, that sure sounds like it will end well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
From twitter: Ben Rabidoux @BenRabidoux Toronto adopts motion to raise development charges. Charges set to jump 32% in Feb 2014 and another 23% in August 2014
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Just saw an ad (on Twitch.tv no less) referring to the TD flexible mortgage payment system. I don't understand why anyone would do this, as they could simply put extra $ into a HISA and then pay the mortgage from that. You're literally giving the bank more money in advance, and it isn't reducing your interest on further payments (during the holiday). I understand that due to not paying for a while you would essentially add to the principal amount, but it should be less overall than a steady payment, no? Unless their lovely calculator was developed by a high school student (which is definitely possible). This thing should drat well better be reducing the total cost of the mortgage, if even by a little bit, and it doesn't seem like it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 19:46
|
|
