Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Saltin: Aug 20, 2003; Don't touch

A $500,000 home with 5% down results in a $13,062.50 insurance premium. This makes your total mortgage $488,062 assuming you are paying cash for any other closing costs.

Lets suppose the bank gives you 3% because hey - no risk on their books. Total interest cost of the mortgage, with a $2,309 monthly payment is $204,857 across 25 years, assuming your rates don't go up, which they definitely will at some point between now and then.

Alternatively, you put 20% down on the same home, resulting in a $400,000 mortgage. The bank gives you 4% because you're not CMHC insured - but you can amortize in 20 years for 2,417 monthly, a small premium monthly on the other scenario. Total interest costs $180,076.61 a saving of about 24k even with the interest rate differential.

The truth is, at least in my experience, that the bank is happy to extend a very low rate to traditional mortgages as well, but the math serves to show it's still better to make a large downpayment.

It is also interesting to consider - say 25 years from now, in the second scenario, you need to sell the house for $680,000 minimum to consider yourself ahead, and that's leaving all the other expenses out of it.

Saltin fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Apr 3, 2014

# ? Apr 3, 2014 14:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 21:47

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

That's awesome saltin. This needs to be posted on tumblr and drilled into the head of anyone wanting to buy a home.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 15:18

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

That's awesome saltin. This needs to be posted on tumblr and drilled into the head of anyone wanting to buy a home.

The evaluation of "being ahead" is greatly complicated by the fact that these are different dollars being discussed. I mean, most people in this thread probably have a notion of time-value-of-money and that it is possible to convert between PV and FV - but your average dude on the street doesn't know that he doesn't know these things.

My parents are fond of the old "we bought for X, sold for Y after K years, thus profit = Y - X" anecdote. Umm, no not really folks...

# ? Apr 3, 2014 15:25

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Saltin posted:

It is also interesting to consider - say 25 years from now, in the second scenario, you need to sell the house for $680,000 minimum to consider yourself ahead, and that's leaving all the other expenses out of it.

Wouldn't it need to be more than $680,000, after adjusting for inflation?

# ? Apr 3, 2014 16:00

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

bathroom sounds posted:

Wouldn't it need to be more than $680,000, after adjusting for inflation?

Exactly my point above. Saltin's point is still valid though - you need to do at least that good just on nominal terms.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 16:26

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Agreed Lexicon. Your average shithead thinks inflation is what happens when you print money.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 16:43

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

bathroom sounds posted:

Wouldn't it need to be more than $680,000, after adjusting for inflation?

Yes, but the main weakness that exists in making the argument is you are fighting against recency. 10-20% yearly increases have been the "norm" for sometime now, so thinking you can flip a house for 75% more than you paid for it a few years back seems reasonable if you don't think about it too much. I didn't even need to get past the first page of mls.ca to find a place in Vancouver that is likely listed (which is as good as sold dontchaknow) at close to 1600% of what it sold for 10 years ago.

Sadly, that actually makes me realize that those numbers make that house look like a better investment than Google at its IPO turned out to be. (Assuming you ignore all the over pros of stocks, and cons of housing.) We are so doomed.

:smith:

# ? Apr 3, 2014 17:02

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

ocrumsprug posted:

Yes, but the main weakness that exists in making the argument is you are fighting against recency. 10-20% yearly increases have been the "norm" for sometime now, so thinking you can flip a house for 75% more than you paid for it a few years back seems reasonable if you don't think about it too much.

1-2% yearly increases in salaries have been the norm for just as long, so I don't know who these people think is going to buy all of these houses at these prices, or who bought them to begin within. (Actually, I probably do know: they think it's incredibly wealthy investors from mainland China and not the incredibly overleveraged family whose income is maybe $80,000 a year.)

# ? Apr 3, 2014 20:11

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Interesting piece by Rob Carrick (clearly undeterred by the avalanche of ad-hominem thrown his way): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/mortgages/gen-y-dont-believe-the-hype-on-home-ownership/article17778213/

# ? Apr 3, 2014 20:12

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

tagesschau posted:

1-2% yearly increases in salaries have been the norm for just as long, so I don't know who these people think is going to buy all of these houses at these prices, or who bought them to begin within. (Actually, I probably do know: they think it's incredibly wealthy investors from mainland China and not the incredibly overleveraged family whose income is maybe $80,000 a year.)

I bolded the problem.

If they are thinking about it, they probably believe that some rich angel will swoop in to save them at a later point. China has a lot of people, so the math even checks out.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 22:47

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

https://t.co/z6Qa8aRXZD

quote:

In Canada, we are reminded far too often that the quality, availability, and use of data often fail to measure up to what experts would like, and what our citizens deserve.

Stephen Gordon, professor of economics at Laval University, has been on the front lines of the battle for better data for quite some time. In January, Mr. Gordon wrote a post at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative titled �Statistics Canada�s Attention Deficit Disorder,� which slammed the agency for its truncated data series.

�Statistics Canada must be the only statistical agency in the world where the average length of a data series gets shorter with the passage of time,� he wrote. �Its habit of killing off time series, replacing them with new, �improved� definitions and not revising the old numbers is a continual source of frustration to Canadian macroeconomists.�

His is far from the only complaint.

In December, Sam Boshra and Angella MacEwen criticized the construction of Statistics Canada�s supplementary unemployment rate (the R8), writing that it fails to capture the full extent of labour underutilization. �The biggest difference [between Canada's and other nation's measures of labour underutilization] is using the full count of involuntary part-time workers versus full-time equivalent adjusted employment, which makes a huge difference for women,� Ms. MacEwen, an economist for Canadian Labour, told Business in Canada. Here�s where Statistics Canada veers off course, in an excerpt copied from the aforementioned article:

Statscan counts just the hours of relative underemployment for each worker � and each such worker is counted as a fraction of a full-time employee, with those fractions combined into a count of �full-time equivalents� (FTE) in R8. There were 897,000 people last year who were involuntary part-timers, according to Statscan�s survey; collectively, they were accounted for as 467,000 �full-time equivalent� workers, effectively underestimating the number of underemployed by 430,000.

The agency appears to be rather unique in its formulation of this metric. �No other nation uses full-time equivalent alone for labour utilization, but Australia does use both,� Ms. MacEwen said.

Though the data may be imperfect, the manner in which they are misused � or ignored � is far more egregious. Most recently, the government used figures on job vacancies inflated by postings on Kijiji to suggest that there�s a pervasive skills mismatch in Canada. However, as The Globe and Mail�s David Parkinson pointed out, data from Statistics Canada on this topic is readily available, and indicates that though there are pockets of Canada in which there may be a skills mismatch, there�s no evidence that proves this is a nationwide problem. As such, Ottawa�s use of flawed statistics has caused bad arithmetic to obscure an important policy debate, in the words of Mr. Parkinson.

And let�s not even get into the issues with the 2011 voluntary census.

SEE ALSO: Though Improving, Canada�s Labour Market Isn�t Where It Ought To Be

While Statistics Canada is often the scapegoat for all of Canada�s data-related ills, Alex Usher, President of Higher Education Strategy Associates, reminds us not to blame everything on just one agency.

�Part of the issue here is that we defer to StatsCan for everything,� he told Business in Canada. �In other countries, much richer data sets are produced by line departments.� For instance, there isn�t a StatsCan equivalent in the United States � a number of government agencies (like the Bureau of Labour Statistics and the Department of Education) produce data in a less centralized, more narrowly focused manner. Compared to other nations, �We expect less from our government agencies in terms of data collection,� Mr. Usher said. In addition, he noted that Statistics Canada is not without its strong suits, pointing out that its agricultural statistics are top-notch.

With regards to the availability of data pertaining to higher education, Mr. Usher indicated that �policymakers have less of a gap than policy analysts do.� By this, he means that independent policy analysts tend to focus on national data, and there isn�t a plethora of that. On the provincial level, Mr. Usher said policymakers have access to the information they need to make prudent decisions, singling out British Columbia for its strength in data collection. Mr. Usher did, however, also acknowledge that the data aren�t as extensive as they could be. �We don�t have stable funding for a suite of information products that makes sense,� he said, adding that this is not Statistics Canada�s fault.

This morning, CIBC deputy chief economist Benjamin Tal added another dimension to this discussion. His new note, �Flying Blind,� details the immense lack of information on the real estate market.

Here�s how he leads off the note:

What was the dollar value of new mortgages originated in Canada in the last quarter? What is the credit score distribution of mortgage credit in Canada? What is the share of non-conforming loans in the Canadian landscape? What is the delinquency rate of those non-conforming loans? What is the trend in re-financing and pre-payments? What is the net equity position of new and existing mortgages? What is the flow of rental activity in the country? What is the share of foreign investors in the condominium market? What is the average down payment?

The short answer is that �we simply don�t know,� Mr. Tal says.

The economist indicates that the asymmetry of information in this segment (banks and lenders have more, average observers have little) may elevate the level of bearish sentiment on Canadian real estate. People who don�t have detailed information, Tal writes, use questionable indicators like the debt-to-income and price-to-rent ratios �that hide more than what they reveal.� He calls on Finance Minster Joe Oliver, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation President and CEO Evan Siddall �to chart a course that reduce any potential risk of a real estate bubble by making data availability a top priority.�

Mr. Tal�s report is just the latest chapter in the nation�s data disaster, a persistent problem that should embarrass policymakers and have all Canadians demanding a fix � now.

This is kind of refreshing as it's a bank "economist" asking for better information. I wonder what shitheads like Cameron Muir, Tsur Sommerville and Helmut Pastrick divine their opinions from.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 22:49

Kalenn Istarion: Nov 2, 2012; Maybe Senpai will finally notice me now that I've dropped :fivebux: on this snazzy av

Saltin posted:

A $500,000 home with 5% down results in a $13,062.50 insurance premium. This makes your total mortgage $488,062 assuming you are paying cash for any other closing costs.

Lets suppose the bank gives you 3% because hey - no risk on their books. Total interest cost of the mortgage, with a $2,309 monthly payment is $204,857 across 25 years, assuming your rates don't go up, which they definitely will at some point between now and then.

Alternatively, you put 20% down on the same home, resulting in a $400,000 mortgage. The bank gives you 4% because you're not CMHC insured - but you can amortize in 20 years for 2,417 monthly, a small premium monthly on the other scenario. Total interest costs $180,076.61 a saving of about 24k even with the interest rate differential.

The truth is, at least in my experience, that the bank is happy to extend a very low rate to traditional mortgages as well, but the math serves to show it's still better to make a large downpayment.

It is also interesting to consider - say 25 years from now, in the second scenario, you need to sell the house for $680,000 minimum to consider yourself ahead, and that's leaving all the other expenses out of it.

I'm actually curious more about the marginal case - which would be ahead if you did a 20% down with no insurance and 3.09 or a 19% down with insurance and 2.89 or whatever. I think you'd still end up with the 20% down mortgage being better but it's an interesting intellectual exercise. I'm phone posting or I'd do it myself.

E: fixed rates

Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Apr 4, 2014

# ? Apr 3, 2014 23:04

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

Cultural Imperial posted:

https://t.co/z6Qa8aRXZD

This is kind of refreshing as it's a bank "economist" asking for better information. I wonder what shitheads like Cameron Muir, Tsur Sommerville and Helmut Pastrick divine their opinions from.

Garbage data from LANDCOR, in my experience. That and CMHC market reports.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 23:12

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-housing-data-dangerously-incomplete-cibc-warns-1.2596751

cbc link on Tal.

# ? Apr 3, 2014 23:15

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip1078149

Some old dumb gently caress baby boomer sez:
1) canadian banks never got into sub prime
2) no high ratio mortgages

kill everyone over 50

# ? Apr 4, 2014 01:58

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip1078149

Some old dumb gently caress baby boomer sez:
1) canadian banks never got into sub prime
2) no high ratio mortgages

kill everyone over 50

Those are things that happened in the U.S., and we're Not the U.S.�, so no matter what we do, it's not the same.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 02:20

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

tagesschau posted:

Those are things that happened in the U.S., and we're Not the U.S.�, so no matter what we do, it's not the same.

It was humorous how even in the US real estate market bubble everyone seemed certain it could go on for a few years.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 02:56

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Even knowing nothing about real estate the argument makes no sense. *Every* real estate bubble other than the US one was different from the US one. You can come up with just a long a list as anyone of reasons why Spain was different from the US, or Ireland, or Britain. Actually Spain's situation is in many ways a better analogy to Canada's anyway - they had relatively well regulated banks too, as well as a big binge of foreign investment purchases in select coastal enclaves.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 03:16

ductonius: Apr 9, 2007; I heard there's a cream for that...

etalian posted:

It was humorous how even in the US real estate market bubble everyone seemed certain it could go on for a few years.

I distinctly remember pundits and analysts going from "there is no bubble, it's just good business" to "the financial world very well may be ending" in the space of 8 months or so and looking like they were sliding down a razor blade every inch of the way.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 03:29

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Does anyone have a good idea of what will happen once this housing bubble pops or deflates or whatever? Are we going right into a recession a la the States?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 13:54

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

All I can say is I hope you have ready, secure access to a supply of car tires, black leather, face paint, and brightly-coloured feathers.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 14:08

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

All I can say is I hope you have ready, secure access to a supply of car tires, black leather, face paint, and brightly-coloured feathers.

I'm Gen Y! I'm a vegan who rides a bike! :ohdear:

# ? Apr 4, 2014 15:54

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

peter banana posted:

Does anyone have a good idea of what will happen once this housing bubble pops or deflates or whatever? Are we going right into a recession a la the States?

derivative industries are going to go out of business, people's retarded 'retirement plans' will be gone overnight forcing them to keep working, restricting the job market. Consumer spending will go down which will impact employment and earnings in consumer sectors (restaurants, retail, etc), corporations might get spooked and try to cut costs by hiring less and laying people off. Other bad poo poo. Any way you look there's pain in the future, especially for folks who don't have guaranteed employment or many job options as it is.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:23

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

peter banana posted:

Does anyone have a good idea of what will happen once this housing bubble pops or deflates or whatever? Are we going right into a recession a la the States?

I cannot find the chart, but if every aspect of the bubble remains in place, but we just revert to historical residential construction levels, Canada will have a 3-4% increase in unemployment.

Now imagine the likelihood of that happening while everything else related to the industry ticked along with no slow down, particularly with that sort of jump in unemployment. Sure hope the oil sands can absorb 5-10% of the workforce.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:27

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

JawKnee posted:

derivative industries are going to go out of business, people's retarded 'retirement plans' will be gone overnight forcing them to keep working, restricting the job market. Consumer spending will go down which will impact employment and earnings in consumer sectors (restaurants, retail, etc), corporations might get spooked and try to cut costs by hiring less and laying people off. Other bad poo poo. Any way you look there's pain in the future, especially for folks who don't have guaranteed employment or many job options as it is.

Even if housing stays at a permanently high plateau - it strikes me as an awful lot of the economy dedicated to debt repayment as opposed to actual wealth creation or hell, consumption that drives other incomes.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:28

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Lexicon posted:

Even if housing stays at a permanently high plateau - it strikes me as an awful lot of the economy dedicated to debt repayment as opposed to actual wealth creation or hell, consumption that drives other incomes.

I forgot about that, not sure how I could though. That so much of the economy is driven by cheap credit elevates the 'shits gonna be bad' outlook from probable to terrifyingly certain. A whole bunch of people who largely don't deserve to are going to suffer come the end of this nonsense

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:37

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

Haha and here I was thinking that going to grad school would make me somewhat more employable. Can't wait when two years from now I am a shift supervisor at Starbucks with a masters. That's best case scenario, assuming people are still willing to spend $5 on a latte at that point.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:46

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

You'll be a shift supervisor at the local ship breaking works because Indian wages rose too high compared to Canada's and their environmental and safety laws are too strict to allow for this type of work. The ship breaking works will also be massively subsidized by the government and pay little to no taxes and there will be government paid for commercials showing beautiful Canadian coastline and inspiring messages about the ship breaking works commitment to the environment and a strong canada.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:59

mik: Oct 16, 2003; oh

Please, you guys are forgetting the mandatory 3 year unpaid internship! How else will Canada's poor, over-taxed, corporations continue to function properly?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 18:18

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Here's how you survive the impending economic collapse : get some international work experience. Make yourself marketable to real companies that make things or do things that are in demand.

And for gently caress's sake, stop trying to win the tech startup lottery with your brilliant new food app.

Got a psychology or sociology degree? Guess what? If you move to a city with a real economy like London or new York, you can actually forge a successful career.

E: and when you've completed your sojourn, come home and prepare to loving own the chumps who stayed in Canada's lovely job market.

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 4, 2014

# ? Apr 4, 2014 18:50

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

that's good advice for those privileged enough to have post-secondary education and presumably not be crushed by debt from that, but is not so terribly useful to, say, the working poor who don't, can't, and possibly have no thoughts of owning a house and yet are still going to be thoroughly hosed by any kind of economic collapse.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 19:57

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Now that we have allowed residential construction to crowd out a number of other industries, should that fail there really is no advice that will be super useful. Hopefully, it doesn't end as bad as Spain with 50% youth unemployment, but that could be wishful thinking.

Learn to grow your own food and exit the urban centers while waiting for industry to rebound I guess.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:13

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

JawKnee posted:

that's good advice for those privileged enough to have post-secondary education and presumably not be crushed by debt from that, but is not so terribly useful to, say, the working poor who don't, can't, and possibly have no thoughts of owning a house and yet are still going to be thoroughly hosed by any kind of economic collapse.

And let that be a lesson to everyone who has the gall to claim that a post secondary education is worthless.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:21

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Ok I'll go back in time and have a family that can afford education and then have the contacts time and money to get a job and go to another country.
This sounds just like our favourite albertan oil booster's defense of the oil industry, "My skills are transferable internationally, I'll just move once the oil dries up".

Immigrating into another country is nearly hopeless unless you're part of the tiny elite of people who not only have degrees but degrees in a field internationally in demand. Also no family, unless you want to be like my neighbour who had to live without seeing his kids for 3 years while waiting for their visas.

I want to fix Canada and Canada's economy because for the vast majority of people moving away is an impossible option. It's not just really hard, it's legally impossible. The EU, Australia, Japan, they don't want your rear end if you don't have the degree they want and a job lined up.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:22

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

Everything sucks everywhere, the EU is headed towards its own severe issues, and Australia is not exactly my barometer of a thriving economy (plus they have their own issues with excrative industries!) so I don't know why some people are suggesting emigration as a panacea. Even for those who can reasonably pull it off, chances are, if you're able to emigrate and get a job elsewhere, you have the job skills to do well in Canada.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:38

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

I'd move to Scandinavia in a hot second if I could find a way to get a visa.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:40

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Baronjutter posted:

Ok I'll go back in time and have a family that can afford education and then have the contacts time and money to get a job and go to another country.
This sounds just like our favourite albertan oil booster's defense of the oil industry, "My skills are transferable internationally, I'll just move once the oil dries up".

Immigrating into another country is nearly hopeless unless you're part of the tiny elite of people who not only have degrees but degrees in a field internationally in demand. Also no family, unless you want to be like my neighbour who had to live without seeing his kids for 3 years while waiting for their visas.

I want to fix Canada and Canada's economy because for the vast majority of people moving away is an impossible option. It's not just really hard, it's legally impossible. The EU, Australia, Japan, they don't want your rear end if you don't have the degree they want and a job lined up.

You misunderstand me; degrees that are useless in the Canadian job market are productive in cities with real economies. You also don't know what you're talking about with respect to immigration. Try telling this to any antipodean and he/she will tell you you're full of poo poo. A lot of Canadians like to convince themselves that they shouldn't leave Canada because they're not good enough or they want to stick around and ~*contribute*~ to their 'community'. The truth is, there's expat populations that come from far more marginalized backgrounds from Commonwealth countries that are hacking out a living in London.

But if you want to squander your opportunity to capitalize on a Canadian economy that's headed for the shitter, that's your business. I wish you best of luck, canadian Hercules.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:46

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Brannock posted:

Everything sucks everywhere, the EU is headed towards its own severe issues, and Australia is not exactly my barometer of a thriving economy (plus they have their own issues with excrative industries!) so I don't know why some people are suggesting emigration as a panacea. Even for those who can reasonably pull it off, chances are, if you're able to emigrate and get a job elsewhere, you have the job skills to do well in Canada.

Moving to Australia would be retarded. The point here is that if you can move to an Alpha++ or Alpha+ city to shelter yourself from a crashing Canadian economy, then you shouldn't waste any time in doing so. If you think you possess the clout and wherewithal to stop the Canadian economy from crashing (like Baronjutter), then I can't help you.

The economic and career opportunities that will be afforded to you in cities like NYC or London are stunning. If you have an undergraduate degree, you can't throw a brick in London without hitting a decent job.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:50

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

Cultural Imperial posted:

The economic and career opportunities that will be afforded to you in cities like NYC or London are stunning. If you have an undergraduate degree, you can't throw a brick in London without hitting a decent job.

What.

Do you have anything to support that, because seriously, what?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 21:47

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

Is Toronto not a real economy?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 20:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »