|
Lexicon posted:Exactly. And the fact that they will likely come to the rest of the country, cap in hand, when it all goes pear shaped, and expect me and others to cough up. At least for me this is more the fault of whoever is extending the credit. That a bus driver is able to afford a $500k mortgage with 10% down is more a problem with the banks than the bus driver. It is the creditor that will come cap in hand expecting to be made whole (and will probably get it).
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:I used to live in Silicon Valley. Out for beers one night, a colleague of mine remarked "Look around the room. See the guys in the flashy suits, sharp haircuts and prominent jewelry? They are all realtors, car rental agents, and all have very low income and net worth. By contrast, the quiet, unassuming dudes with jeans and plain T-shirts are the ones pulling in well over-six figures, and in many cases have seven-figure net worths" This reminds me of my time in SoCal prebuble pop. I got my first job down there in 2003, and everyone was on me to BUYBUYBUY ITS FREE MONIES!!! But I steadfastly refused because prices were already overvalued, I was fresh out of 8 years of school and had $25K of debt and no downpayment, and my wife had just started her grad work at UBC and so we were a split household. (Plus, I never wanted to settle there anyway--a lovely job in a lovely location) So I rented, paid double on all of my loans, and when a job came up in Canada got the hell out. Post boom, all those folks that were on me to buy are stuck in a lovely job because they lost so much equity on their houses. Of course, when I finally bought into the Calgary market the prices were just cresting, then 2008 took that out so arguably I am in the same situation except I bought for location as a residence and its all potentoial money anyway until you cash out so
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:You live in Calgary, one of the least sustainable economies in Canada. Try thinking harder. Yeah, but when it crashes there won't be massive levels of consumer debt compared to other cities (unless we take on huge amounts of debt at that point), because a lot of things are bought with cold, hard cash (or credit cards that are paid off monthly). My only point is that buying $400 can reasonably be included as "living within your means" on a middle-class salary. It may not be true for all areas, but it is at least true in some areas. If people can afford the things they're buying, you should have no problem with it. It may not be an optimal use of that money, but it's not your business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Do we actually know the consumer debt load of alberta vs other places? I know some people who went to alberta to live the whole oil patch dream. They're making like 80k a year but that just means they feel they can go into even bigger debt. People are loving stupid and will go into what ever debt the system allows them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Are there still really people in 2014 who still expect China to grow indefinitely? Probably, in that there are people in 2014 who are not familiar with the...uh...malleability of Soviet economic statistics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Do we actually know the consumer debt load of alberta vs other places? I know some people who went to alberta to live the whole oil patch dream. They're making like 80k a year but that just means they feel they can go into even bigger debt. People are loving stupid and will go into what ever debt the system allows them. My guess is they aren't doing it with $400 jeans, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, but when it crashes there won't be massive levels of consumer debt compared to other cities (unless we take on huge amounts of debt at that point), because a lot of things are bought with cold, hard cash (or credit cards that are paid off monthly). My only point is that buying $400 can reasonably be included as "living within your means" on a middle-class salary. It may not be true for all areas, but it is at least true in some areas. If people can afford the things they're buying, you should have no problem with it. It may not be an optimal use of that money, but it's not your business. Since nobody in this thread has said one single god-damned thing about whether or not people are morally entitled to expensive consumer goods, perhaps you have come here with an axe to grind?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Since nobody in this thread has said one single god-damned thing about whether or not people are morally entitled to expensive consumer goods, perhaps you have come here with an axe to grind? sitchensis posted:Ugh. loving ugh. Boomers are retiring so they "treat themselves" to luxury cars. As if the self entitled ninnies hadn't gorged themselves enough through their working years. Maybe it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but this sounds like a fairly passive-aggressive way of whinging about people buying expensive things (with no specific indication as to whether or not they're being bought on credit, I might add). What would you, forums poster "Franks Happy Place", take the quoted post to mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:My guess is they aren't doing it with $400 jeans, though. It's over-priced $400 jeans style trucks all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
There is a difference between whining that someone can afford to buy expensive things, and pointing out that buying (to continue the example) $400 jeans when you are $10,000+ in debt on your Credit Card is pretty loving retarded and will have widespread effects on the economy when that easy credit inevitably ends. It's like people didn't even read the article. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's over-priced $400 jeans style trucks all the way down. Which indicates that people living outside their means is the real problem. It's not fixed to one class of goods, or specific amounts, it's just a matter of people spending more money than they have. It's not about eating out too much, or buying expensive clothes, or even buying expensive vehicles (up to and including yachts and airplanes, because I do know people who are that wealthy). It's all about spending more money than you're making and/or more of your savings than you can afford to spare. Full stop. It has nothing to do with the items being purchased, and everything to do with consumer debt. My point has only ever been that there are people that can comfortably afford pretty much anything you can think of, so it's wrong to judge people based solely on the things they own. They might be in debt for them, or they might not. There's no way you, or I, or anyone can tell without knowing the details of their finances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Rime posted:There is a difference between whining that someone can afford to buy expensive things, and pointing out that buying (to continue the example) $400 jeans when you are $10,000+ in debt on your Credit Card is pretty loving retarded and will have widespread effects on the economy when that easy credit inevitably ends. I wasn't responding to the article, I was responding to this post: sitchensis posted:Ugh. loving ugh. Boomers are retiring so they "treat themselves" to luxury cars. As if the self entitled ninnies hadn't gorged themselves enough through their working years. I agree with the article's apparent thesis that consumer debt is far too high in this country, but the post I just quoted doesn't necessarily address that point. It seems like a whine about people who buy expensive things. EDIT: If you feel like I'm being insensitive or unfair, may I suggest splurging on a $10 custom title replacement on the subject? I've quite been enjoying the previous week's rotation of new titles, and I should hate for it to end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
It sounds like most people are saying the same thing, which is as long as you are spending within your means and living a lifestyle that your income (not debt capacity) can support, everyone in the Canadian Housing Bubble Thread has no problem with you. We are all sore at people who leveraged the gently caress out their debt capacity in order to project a financial status which is not accurate. For anyone who feels otherwise there really is no room for any judgement when people spend money on things they can genuinely afford, even if you don't like it, even if it is "nuts" to spend that sort of money on that sort of thing. People can do what they like and you can pound sand. Moral arguments seem to fail for me too, seeing as most of the clothes people wear in North America are made by almost slaves in far off countries regardless of whether they cost $10 at old navy or $400 at NM. Saltin fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Saltin posted:There really is no room for any judgement when people spend money on things they can genuinely afford, even if you don't like it, even if it is "nuts" to spend that sort of money on that sort of thing. People can do what they like and you can pound sand. Moral arguments seem to fail for me too, seeing as most of the clothes people wear in North America are made by almost slaves in far off countries regardless of whether they cost $10 at old navy or $400 at NM. Not necessarily true. A lot of the clothes that people splurge on are made in North America or Europe under first-world conditions, which is one of the reasons that people who can afford to do so often spend extra on these clothes. I bought a $700 tailored 2-piece suit made in Montreal using Italian fabric instead of $300 on what would've been basically the same thing made in Indonesia because I wanted to support Canadian industry and good working conditions. I would only ever spend over $100 on a pair of jeans if they were made in the first world, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not necessarily true. A lot of the clothes that people splurge on are made in North America or Europe under first-world conditions, which is one of the reasons that people who can afford to do so often spend extra on these clothes. I bought a $700 tailored 2-piece suit made in Montreal using Italian fabric instead of $300 on what would've been basically the same thing made in Indonesia because I wanted to support Canadian industry and good working conditions. I would only ever spend over $100 on a pair of jeans if they were made in the first world, too. I was just about to add this - I often pay more for things that are Canadian or US made because I know they support the right things, and I am lucky to be able to afford that I suppose. However, there is no argument that much of the high end fashion lines are made in China/Bangladesh,etc. It's a statement of fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
beepo posted:$400 jeans are a bit of an exaggeration, but I see lots of places selling $150-$250 jeans. It's not just places like Holt Renfrew, pretty much anything above mall brands are going to be in that price range. The thing is, you can buy say a $150 pair of Naked and Famous jeans that are made in Canada from high-quality Japanese denim and will last four times longer than $50 budget jeans. That's actually cheaper in the long term, and better for the local economy. $400 jeans, though? Eh. PT6A posted:Is it, though? Of the people I know who are working full-time, salaried jobs, I'd say only one of them has consumer debt problems (caused by stupidity and possibly a gambling problem). Consumer debt is a major problem, I agree, but luxury purchases needn't necessarily be made on credit. You also live in the middle of Oil Boom Town. Most of the people you know are likely in the top quintile nationally in terms of earnings (for now). Franks Happy Place posted:Since nobody in this thread has said one single god-damned thing about whether or not people are morally entitled to expensive consumer goods, perhaps you have come here with an axe to grind? As I'm pretty sure most of us know from the other thread and the frequency of badvatars, PT6A has a whole shed full of blunt axes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:You also live in the middle of Oil Boom Town. Most of the people you know are likely in the top quintile nationally in terms of earnings (for now). Yes, I don't believe I've argued with this the first several times it was brought up. I'm just saying that you can't apply the economics of one region to other regions. There are solidly middle-class people in this city who can find it in their budget to buy a $400 [item] (let's just get away from jeans, because it makes no difference what it is for the sake of this argument) and not assume any debt as a result. This is certainly not the case everywhere, and a lot of the "middle-class" in Calgary would be knocking on the door of upper-class in other regions if they maintained the same salary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:a lot of the "middle-class" in Calgary would be knocking on the door of upper-class in other regions if they maintained the same salary. You should stop talking about classes when you're discussing income. It's clearer. I wouldn't call a high school graduate who drives a vac truck up in the Fort upper-class even if he earned a quarter mil a year - just to demonstrate how subjective the concept is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, I don't believe I've argued with this the first several times it was brought up. I'm just saying that you can't apply the economics of one region to other regions. There are solidly middle-class people in this city who can find it in their budget to buy a $400 [item] (let's just get away from jeans, because it makes no difference what it is for the sake of this argument) and not assume any debt as a result. This is certainly not the case everywhere, and a lot of the "middle-class" in Calgary would be knocking on the door of upper-class in other regions if they maintained the same salary. What you are arguing is "there exist Canadians who buy luxury items without going into debt to do so", which is easily true but facile. What matters is the average. And the point made about the average situation in Canada, in both the original article, and in the very many statistics that get brought up regularly in this thread (HELOCs at 14% of GDP, consumer debt high and growing fast, etc) is that on average, Canadians are buying luxuries on credit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Since this entire conversation is a result of an article pointing out that massive investment in retail space aimed at the growing luxury segment is currently underway (despite stagnant national wage growth), telling us that some people can and always have been able to afford luxury goods is not only irrelevant, it is less than relevant. It directly flies in the face of high school level reading comprehension of that article, and is the conversational equivalent of farting in an elevator. We are all dumber and less whole as human beings for having to wade through your moronic drivel masquerading as libertarianism. You didn't even cite counterfactual statistics or make a point, beyond an objection to a perceived threat to centrally plan the distribution of designer jeans. To which I say on behalf of everyone: good job, buddy, we'll make sure to raise your concerns at the next Central Party Plenary Session on Bourgeois Consumption. Let the jeans flow! So thank you, PT6A, for telling us that some people can indeed afford to buy nice things, which apparently somehow diminishes the massive boom in luxury spending and concomitant massive boom in consumer debt in our nation. Truly, a worthy contribution to the Canadian Housing Bubble Thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:What you are arguing is "there exist Canadians who buy luxury items without going into debt to do so", which is easily true but facile. What matters is the average. And the point made about the average situation in Canada, in both the original article, and in the very many statistics that get brought up regularly in this thread (HELOCs at 14% of GDP, consumer debt high and growing fast, etc) is that on average, Canadians are buying luxuries on credit. Yes, and I haven't been arguing against that. The original post I made on this subject quoted a poster that didn't even mention consumer debt in his post, and merely whined about the value of some of the things being purchased (luxury cars and expensive clothes). Why don't you lecture him for a while? Oh, right, because most of the posters here already hold some level of prejudice toward me on the basis that I'm not a lefist, and I live in Alberta... EDIT: Every single time I've posted on the subject of consumer debt, I have agreed with the article and the prevailing opinion in this thread, so if you feel it's drivel then you are calling your own opinions drivel at the same time. I was responding to a very specific post that did not make this distinction, as I've pointed out several times. When certain specific items are being referenced as "bad," it makes sense to clarify that the problem with the growth of the luxury sector is the fact that people are living beyond their means, not that luxury items are being purchased. The things being purchased are only a distraction. I don't get why people get so pissed off at me for pointing this out. PT6A fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Saltin posted:You should stop talking about classes when you're discussing income. It's clearer. I wouldn't call a high school graduate who drives a vac truck up in the Fort upper-class even if he earned a quarter mil a year - just to demonstrate how subjective the concept is. Yeah, it doesn't really translate in Canada and it certainly wouldn't be accurate in the UK. What terms do you propose instead? Regionally-based income quintiles/deciles?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, it doesn't really translate in Canada and it certainly wouldn't be accurate in the UK. What terms do you propose instead? Regionally-based income quintiles/deciles? I'm happy with national quintiles as a starting point. Anything, anything, other than talking about the sodding "middle class".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I'm happy with national quintiles as a starting point. Anything, anything, other than talking about the sodding "middle class". Right, but the specific post I made was comparing relative incomes between regions. A middle-quintile salary in Calgary might be upper-quintile in another region. I agree it's a more precise, less loaded term for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/YVRHousing/status/448254904016990208quote:Feb-Mar change in sales/working-day since 1999 has been 20.6±7.4. This year is trending about -9 L loving L
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenRabidoux/status/448448238371479552quote:Ben Rabidoux 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
House went up for sale in my neighbourhood in Toronto this week. Along the Danforth, walking distance to subway, 5 stops to Yonge and Bloor. Semi, 17.5 by 100 foot lot. Tiny place. I bought my house in 2003 for $320k and it's much bigger. This house is listed at just shy of $800k and they are going to get it. Unreal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Saltin posted:House went up for sale in my neighbourhood in Toronto this week. Along the Danforth, walking distance to subway, 5 stops to Yonge and Bloor. Semi, 17.5 by 100 foot lot. Tiny place. I bought my house in 2003 for $320k and it's much bigger. This house is listed at just shy of $800k and they are going to get it. You should sell your place, move into a rental, and buy when the market implodes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Saltin posted:House went up for sale in my neighbourhood in Toronto this week. Along the Danforth, walking distance to subway, 5 stops to Yonge and Bloor. Semi, 17.5 by 100 foot lot. Tiny place. I bought my house in 2003 for $320k and it's much bigger. This house is listed at just shy of $800k and they are going to get it. shrike82 posted:You should sell your place, move into a rental, and buy when the market implodes. Seriously, if someone is willing to give you twice and more what you paid, sell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:You should sell your place, move into a rental, and buy when the market implodes. Really tempted, I know it makes a lot of sense. There's a confluence of things going on when I think about it - I like my place, I will be mortgage free shortly, my daughter has friends at all our neighbours. Conversely, pocketing 650-700k would be pretty drat sweet. I just can't examine the situation as purely financial, which is strange for me because that's how I look at literally every other thing. I am practical about housing, but there is still some emotional poo poo going on there for sure. I can't account for it. Financially, assuming I would eventually re-buy and the Toronto land transfer doesn't go away, I calculate the transaction costs to sell and eventually re-buy at approx $60k too. It isn't cheap. I know it still makes sense assuming the value of the house drops by more than that in any correction. Saltin fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Really tempted, I know it makes a lot of sense. There's a confluence of things going on when I think about it - I like my place, I will be mortgage free shortly, my daughter has friends at all our neighbours. Conversely, pocketing 650-700k would be pretty drat sweet. Do you think your daughter would rather have her friendly neighbours or her entire PhD education paid for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Twiin posted:Do you think your daughter would rather have her friendly neighbours or her entire PhD education paid for? Without getting into my finances too much, there is almost no chance of her ever having to take out a student loan. Because we bought way less house than we could afford there is tons of money being actively saved and invested for retirement and her education. She's got more saved at 5 than most kids have going into 1st year. Saltin fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Without getting into my finances too much, there is almost no chance of her ever having to take out a student loan. in that case do you think she would rather have friendly neighbours or a parent who owns a hovercraft
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Really tempted, I know it makes a lot of sense. There's a confluence of things going on when I think about it - I like my place, I will be mortgage free shortly, my daughter has friends at all our neighbours. Conversely, pocketing 650-700k would be pretty drat sweet. Use less than 2% of that money to buy your daughter a car, then she'll be able to visit her friends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Guys, I hear you all. I know it's the prudent thing. I'm just saying it's hard to evaluate from a completely financial perspective when I have 2 other people (wife and daughter) plus my own bullshit to consider.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:You should sell your place, move into a rental, and buy when the market implodes. Isn't the market already in the process of imploding? A page or a couple pages ago someone posted that sales in March were down way low compared to February, and also compared to the March-February difference over the past 15 years. I can't imagine that selling right now would be a reliable way to get out. Is the market actually that hot right now, despite all the talk about vacant condos and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
I don't really understand the frame of mind of homeowners. You're sitting on what amounts to a once in a lifetime capital gain worth almost a million dollars. And it's tax free. On the other hand people think nothing of buying lottery tickets or gambling to achieve financial independence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I don't really understand the frame of mind of homeowners. You're sitting on what amounts to a once in a lifetime capital gain worth almost a million dollars. And it's tax free. It's definitely not logical. Also I know you're speaking in general, but I am definitely not counting on any serendipity to ensure my independence. Brannock posted:Isn't the market already in the process of imploding? A page or a couple pages ago someone posted that sales in March were down way low compared to February, and also compared to the March-February difference over the past 15 years. I can't imagine that selling right now would be a reliable way to get out. Is the market actually that hot right now, despite all the talk about vacant condos and stuff? The market in general I suppose, but there are different climates, even within the same city. For example, in Toronto, condos are pretty much tanking and have been for a while. Tough to unload. Million dollar plus homes have cooled off and generally go for a little under asking thanks to the CMHC rule changes for mortgages of that size. I understand this had a large impact in Vancouver as well where more homes tend to be "valued" above 1 mil. However, the 500k to 999k Single Family Home market in Toronto is still red loving hot, assuming factors like walkability, subway/transit, etc are in place. Good homes in this range are really really hard to find too. Homeowners are hanging onto their places. Also, when the correction comes, it will affect all areas, but different areas in different ways. I firmly believe that suburban homes and urban condos are going to take it on the teeth, and city homes in the right neighbourhoods, while correcting, will do so to a lesser degree. They will also be the first to turn around. The degree to which these sub-markets correct is debatable, for sure. jet sanchEz posted:My sister was offered a massive amount of money for her house by a serious buyer and she turned it down. She and her family like where they live and to actually save any of the money, they'd have to buy a house outside of the city so what would be the point? What the others are getting at is that you can lease a better home for less than your mortgage payment, in general. So you sell, pocket and invest the gain, and then lease. Wait for correction, buy in again. While it is inevitable that this is going to happen (correction), there are loads of people that have been on the sidelines for the last 5 years watching the opposite happen. It' hosed up. Saltin fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
My sister was offered a massive amount of money for her house by a serious buyer and she turned it down. She and her family like where they live and to actually save any of the money, they'd have to buy a house outside of the city so what would be the point? Edit: I should clarify; she has a coach house on her property and someone with a lot of money just HAD to have a coach house in the Roncesvalles neighbourhood so offered her and her husband, through a realtor, a big chunk of change. They bought in 1999 and have 5 kids so they are just about the only people in one of these huge houses that actually need the space and can afford it. jet sanchEz fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Guys, Saltin clearly understands the calculus here. There are legitimate reasons to not pack up and sell, even in a crazy hot market like Toronto's 550k-999k SFH/semi/rowhouse market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:05
|
|