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.

«‹›1521 »

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

Wow, Vancouver housing prices are as stupid as San Diego housing prices... without the corresponding climate.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 19:38

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

ZombieLenin posted:

Wow, Vancouver housing prices are as stupid as $CITY housing prices... without the corresponding $CITY_BENEFIT.

Generalized for you

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:47

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Mar 16, 2019

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:52

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

Lexicon posted:

Generalized for you

Thanks. It was meant in jest. I wasn't being serious.

In fact, as a native San Diegan who has spent a bunch of time in BC, if I could swing a visa I'd take Vancouver any day of the week.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:53

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

ZombieLenin posted:

Thanks. It was meant in jest. I wasn't being serious.

In fact, as a native San Diegan who has spent a bunch of time in BC, if I could swing a visa I'd take Vancouver any day of the week.

I only replied that way because it is often pointed out that Vancouver is crazily expensive as SF, NYC, London, etc are - but doesn't have the commensurate benefits, especially financial, of those places. Weather is a fun addition to that, as Vancouver-pumpers seem to not internalize how unbelievably soul-crushing that rain can be.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:57

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

ZombieLenin posted:

Thanks. It was meant in jest. I wasn't being serious.

In fact, as a native San Diegan who has spent a bunch of time in BC, if I could swing a visa I'd take Vancouver any day of the week.

Why? If I could, I'd trade places with you in a heartbeat.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 17:58

Buskas: Aug 31, 2004; ?

melon cat posted:

I'd honestly like to hear some examples, because I'm definitely not convinced that "good debt" exists. To a lot of people, classifying debt into 'good' and 'bad' seems more like a coping mechanism instead of a reasoned, logical argument.

Here are a few:

To purchase equipment to start a professional business (e.g. a dentist's sole proprietorship).
To pay for tuition for an educational upgrade where that education will lead to increased wages.
To buy a home in a normal market (i.e. not 2014 Vancouver or Toronto) with a reasonable down payment, in which to raise a family over an extended period of time.

There are countless examples of good debt (many more in the business world), the underlying assumptions in all cases being that the benefit gained by assuming the debt is greater than the interest cost, and that there is a reasonable level of risk in obtaining that benefit.

There are those who don't understand or care about the cost of debt; they're the ones with $30K in credit card debt and a personal line of credit with which they bought a vacation. There are those who understand the cost/benefit aspect of debt but don't understand the risk levels of their debt; they're continuing to "take advantage of low interest rates" and put 5% down on Vancouver or Toronto condo "investment properties", and some will get lucky and cash out while others get burned and lose everything. There are those who will use debt to invest in prospects of reasonable risk, like the examples I gave above; most will come out ahead but some will be unlucky and things won't work out. And then there are those who think that all debt is bad debt, who are probably not suffering but will miss out on some opportunities in the long run (which is really neither here nor there as long as you're happy with your lot in life).

# ? Oct 13, 2014 18:05

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

melon cat posted:

I'd honestly like to hear some examples, because I'm definitely not convinced that "good debt" exists. To a lot of people, classifying debt into 'good' and 'bad' seems more like a coping mechanism instead of a reasoned, logical argument.

This is a wrongheaded viewpoint. Debt is a wonderful thing when used correctly. The classic, though trite, example is a craftsman who borrows money to buy his tools, so he can start working right away. It's an objectively worse outcome for everyone if he has to scrimp and save at a lovely job to save up for everything he needs before he can start working. Plenty of other such examples, in both a personal, corporate, and societal setting.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 18:09

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

Lexicon posted:

This is a wrongheaded viewpoint. Debt is a wonderful thing when used correctly. The classic, though trite, example is a craftsman who borrows money to buy his tools, so he can start working right away. It's an objectively worse outcome for everyone if he has to scrimp and save at a lovely job to save up for everything he needs before he can start working. Plenty of other such examples, in both a personal, corporate, and societal setting.

Buskas posted:

There are countless examples of good debt (many more in the business world), the underlying assumptions in all cases being that the benefit gained by assuming the debt is greater than the interest cost, and that there is a reasonable level of risk in obtaining that benefit.

But that's the thing- "good debt" is only "good" when it's successful and makes you money. All of these examples that you guys are citing can quickly turn into "bad" debt if fails to turn a profit. A craftsman's business can fail, and he's saddled with a business loan that he's still paying off with nothing to show for it. An educational upgrade can lead you to be overqualified in your field, and therefore harm your ability to gain a higher income. I know how cynical this all sounds, but what I'm simply saying is that there isn't any debt that can objectively be called "good".

Categorizing debt into good/bad really oversimplifies the concept of debt, and not in a good way. And in many cases, people don't have a good sense as to what really can be considered "good" debt, so this whole habit of categorizing good/bad debt is a very unhealthy mindset to have when managing your finances.

melon cat fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 13, 2014

# ? Oct 13, 2014 18:19

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

melon cat posted:

But that's the thing- "good debt" is only "good" when it's successful and makes you money. All of these examples that you guys are citing can quickly turn into "bad" debt if fails to turn a profit. So there isn't any debt that can objectively be called "good".

Categorizing debt into good/bad really oversimplifies the concept of debt, and not in a good way. And in many cases, people don't have a good sense as to what really can be considered "good" debt, so this whole habit of categorizing good/bad debt is a very unhealthy mindset to have when managing your finances.

Well, it's risk/reward, right? Nothing is guaranteed.

By way of analogy: I claim that it is 'good' to invest in equity markets. The return is not guaranteed, and it can go spectacularly wrong if you are stupid or supremely unlucky. However, it's unanimous among financial mavens that smart equity investing is a necessary part of inflation-beating retirement savings. By contrast, buying lottery or Keno tickets is stupid. That would be 'bad' investing.

There's a similar partition to be made with 'good' and 'bad' debt.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 18:25

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why? If I could, I'd trade places with you in a heartbeat.

Because I love your country more than mine mostly. I'm also quite fond of Vancouver and absolutely love the mountains up around Whistler.

That and I just moved from San Diego to Indianapolis, so I doubt very much you want to trade places with me.

However, it's a fair enough point that all the thing I really love about BC--except for Canadians and Vancouver--are only a few hours drive from San Diego. Plus if you are into this (I am sort of) you can avoid things like the Winter until you want to go skiing. Then you can drive to the winter in 3 hours.

Edit

I feel robbed, as I found out my grandmother was technically a Canadian citizen. I found this out one year after the deadline by which I could have used this to claim Canadian citizenship myself.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 18:32

Buskas: Aug 31, 2004; ?

melon cat posted:

But that's the thing- "good debt" is only "good" when it's successful and makes you money. All of these examples that you guys are citing can quickly turn into "bad" debt if fails to turn a profit. A craftsman's business can fail, and he's saddled with a business loan that he's still paying off with nothing to show for it. An educational upgrade can lead you to be overqualified in your field, and therefore harm your ability to gain a higher income. I know how cynical this all sounds, but what I'm simply saying is that there isn't any debt that can objectively be called "good".

Categorizing debt into good/bad really oversimplifies the concept of debt, and not in a good way. And in many cases, people don't have a good sense as to what really can be considered "good" debt, so this whole habit of categorizing good/bad debt is a very unhealthy mindset to have when managing your finances.

So what's your conclusion? No one should take on any debt, ever?

If you don't want to put it into arbitrary classifications like "good" and "bad" that's fine - I agree it's simplistic and offers the ignorant an opportunity to misunderstand the potential consequences of taking on debt. But the fact that debt is not always going to lead to a positive outcome doesn't negate its usefulness.

As I mentioned, responsible indebtedness comes with an understanding of the related risk (and should include contingencies if things don't go as planned).

# ? Oct 13, 2014 21:30

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

ZombieLenin posted:

Wow, Vancouver housing prices are as stupid as San Diego housing prices... without the corresponding climate.

They are worse.

# ? Oct 13, 2014 22:08

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0S70CP20141013?irpc=932

These pearl clutchers are severely lacking in vision. You're not going to get rich buying real estate if you focus on inconsequential details like build quality. You need to think big and embrace your pride of ownership.

Remember how Vancouver got burned in the 80s and had to spend piles of money on repairing/demo shoddily built condos?

# ? Oct 13, 2014 23:57

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

etalian posted:

Remember how Vancouver got burned in the 80s and had to spend piles of money on repairing/demo shoddily built condos?

I've been saying for years that Leaky Condo Crisis 2.0 come 2018 is going to be a shitstorm of biblical proportions. :allears:

# ? Oct 14, 2014 00:01

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

etalian posted:

Remember how Vancouver got burned in the 80s and had to spend piles of money on repairing/demo shoddily built condos?

I never knew about this. Where can I read up more on that whole thing? Because Toronto's shoebox condo market it absolutely headed in that same direction.

melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Mar 16, 2019

# ? Oct 14, 2014 00:11

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Leaky condos etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_condo_crisis

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/03-108-e.html

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=cdcb3d4f-066e-4b4e-b8b9-09bfe2a7b562

Part 2 lol

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Leaky+condo+crisis+rears+head+again/9871711/story.html

Depreciation Reports were instituted this year with the goal of preventing this problem from happening again (amongst other measures). Except everyone is ignoring the regulation.

https://www.biv.com/article/2014/5/condo-owners-ignoring-depreciation-reports/

You probably lack Vision if you let these facts sway your decision to buy real estate.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 00:16

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-12/scotiabank-s-porter-calls-canada-bubble-fears-overblown.html

quote:

Canadian concerns about a housing bubble are overblown in a country where credit growth is modest and the job market is stable, says Bank of Nova Scotia Chief Executive Officer Brian Porter.

�Bubble is perhaps the most overused word since the global financial crisis,� Porter said in an interview yesterday in Washington, referring to Canada�s housing market. �We are very comfortable in terms of our exposure, we think we have monitored it well, and we stress test that.�

Domestic mortgages worth about C$200 billion ($179 billion) are the biggest part of the Toronto-based lender�s balance sheet, Porter said, and the value of those assets can withstand even major jumps in unemployment or interest rates. Gains in housing in Toronto, a focus of concern among regulators after a surge in prices and condominium construction, are backed by population growth, he said.

�Canadian consumers have generally a very conservative attitude towards debt, and their household balance sheet including other assets is in very good shape,� Porter said.

Canada�s ratio of household debt to disposable income rose to 163.6 percent between April and June, close to the record 164.1 percent in the third quarter of last year, Statistics Canada said Sept. 12. The drop in the average five-year fixed mortgage rate to the lowest in decades at 4.8 percent this year has fueled unexpected gains in home prices and resales, which reached the highest in more than four years in August.

Consumer credit growth is close to the rate of inflation, between 2 percent and 2.5 percent, Porter said. Last week, Canada reported the jobless rate fell to the lowest in almost six years in September on the largest monthly increase in employment since May 2013.

Biggest Risk

The biggest risk for Canada is losing out on global demand for its commodities by failing to build a network of export pipelines, Porter said.

�The Canadian economy has to graduate from what has been a housing-development led recovery coming out of the global financial crisis, and there has to be spending in the real economy,� he said.

He cited delays in building liquefied natural gas terminals on the west coast.

�Canada basically produces what the world wants, whether it�s grains, potash, uranium, oil and gas,� Porter said. �But the consumers of these have choices, whether it�s the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, so Canadians shouldn�t be too complacent here and capital doesn�t like uncertainty.�

�The consequences are significant, economically and otherwise,� he said.

lol gently caress you Brian Porter

# ? Oct 14, 2014 00:27

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

melon cat posted:

I never knew about this. Where can I read up more on that whole thing? Because Toronto's shoebox condo market it absolutely headed in that same direction.

If you look over old housing data you can see a bubble in 1980s.

Basically the local government got burned since they decided to do both a bailout and also had to spend city funds on repair loans with some more extreme cases demoing condos that were in bad shape/never actually got finished due to the bubble busting.

However this time things will be different.....

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-12/scotiabank-s-porter-calls-canada-bubble-fears-overblown.html

lol gently caress you Brian Porter

I'm not sure how he can keep a straight face claiming Canadian households are very conservative with debt loading, when they already surpassed the excesses of the US bubble.

etalian fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Oct 14, 2014

# ? Oct 14, 2014 00:56

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Australian article but interesting in the context of Chinese property investment.

http://world.einnews.com/article/228939234/aXdTPCBrskoCFnad

quote:

DESPITE valiant efforts by commentators such as Bernard Keane and Michael Pascoe to slay claims that Chinese buyers are making it harder for ordinary Australians to enter the housing market, the notion refuses to die.

It is the "zombie idea" afflicting the Australia-China economic relationship.

And there is a danger the zombies will multiply. Last week the Australian Financial Review reported that China recently eased restrictions on outbound investment. The implication being "a fresh wave of capital [is] expected to make its way into the Australian property market".

The Sydney Morning Herald continued with the same theme listing several recent examples of Chinese-funded projects with values reaching into the billions.

But all these reports lack one critical factor: context.

Even if Chinese investment is rising, it is still a small proportion of the market

All foreign investment in Australian real estate requires approval from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB).

According to FIRB, over the period 2009-10 to 2012-13, approvals for Chinese investment in Australian real estate totalled $16.6 billion.

At first blush this seems an impressively large figure. But it is actually less than 10% of the total value of foreign investment approvals in the sector.

Approvals to Chinese investors have lagged behind those from the United States. They have also not been much more than those from the United Kingdom, which has an economy around one quarter the size of China's and less than 5% of the population.

The scale of Chinese investment seems again smaller when viewed against the size of the market. In a report earlier this year, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) observed that total foreign investment approvals in residential real estate have historically only been around 5-10% of the value of home sales. Chinese approvals are just a proportion of this percentage.

It is also important to keep in mind we are talking about approvals here, not purchases. This means FIRB data overstate the true value of foreign investment.

For example, a property developer in Australia can apply to the FIRB for approval to sell all new dwellings in a large scale real estate project to foreign buyers. In their submission to the Inquiry into Foreign Investment in Residential Real Estate, the Commonwealth Treasury noted that based on past experience only around 35%, on average, of such dwellings end up in the hands of foreigners.

Also don't forget that FIRB data is gross, not net. In any given year some foreign investors will seek FIRB approval for new purchases. Meanwhile others will sell down their existing portfolios. As a result, simply adding the value of FIRB approvals from year to year exaggerates the size of the stock of Australian real estate assets held by foreigners.

What all this means is that Chinese investment can grow strongly and still not come close to flooding the market. Citing preliminary FIRB data from the first three quarters of 2013-2014, the Commonwealth Treasury noted a sharp jump in foreign investment approvals over the previous year, particularly from China. But as the RBA shows, this still only takes the value of total foreign investment approvals to around 12-13% of total sales.

Chinese investment actually increases housing supply

Issues of scale aside, Chinese investment has the effect of increasing housing supply. This acts to restrain price growth.

Regulations also limit Chinese investors to buying new properties. Exceptions are few. For example, a Chinese student may purchase an established property to live in while studying in Australia. But it must be sold once they return home.

Building new housing requires a lot of capital. A report earlier this year by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found a leading cause of the undersupply of housing in Australia is the availability of finance. Banks are the first port of call for most developers. Yet banks generally demand pre-sales, or sales of dwellings before their construction even begins, of between 50-100% of the value of the loan being sort.

Michael Pascoe put it like this, "Without the stimulus of investors to get the country building now, we'll face demand-induced price pressure all of our own soon enough".

With a small population and a limited domestic savings pool, Australia has a long tradition of accepting and benefiting from foreign investment in capital-intensive sectors of the economy. The real estate sector is no different: a dollar of Australian savings tied up in housing is a dollar that cannot be productively invested elsewhere.

Other benefits of Chinese investment include the very real jobs created in Australia's construction industry and associated sectors such as housing appliances.

Are foreign investors breaking the rules?

Recent allegations that some foreign investors have skirted FIRB rules to purchase established housing have attracted much media attention. This claim does nothing to undercut the benefits brought by foreign investment. Rather, it is a complaint about existing rules not being enforced.

The intensity of enforcement is entirely at the discretion of Australian authorities. The FIRB reviews around 2.5% of housing transactions to verify compliance. Simple economics says that scrutinising every one of the 600,000 housing transactions each year would not be an efficient use of resources. The FIRB employs the same risk management approach that Australian Customs uses when screening imports for contraband and counterfeit products.

Another factor that troubles commentators about Chinese investment is that some of this money finds its way to Australia via the "grey economy" or the "shadow banking system".

But there is nothing sinister about it. China has a prominent informal financial system because its formal banking sector functions so poorly. It regularly offers savers negative real returns and supplies a dearth of credit to dynamic private sector firms.

Without an informal financial system to overcome these deficiencies, China's growth would have been much slower than it has been and Australia would be worse off as a result. Similarly, the flow of Chinese capital to Australia would have been reduced and so too would the benefits received - there would be less housing supply and fewer construction jobs.

Knee-jerk arguments blaming Chinese investors for high Aussie house prices may be refuted with hard evidence. Unfortunately zombie ideas in economics have a habit of rising again.

James Laurenceson
Deputy Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI) at University of Technology, Sydney

# ? Oct 14, 2014 01:17

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Cultural Imperial posted:

Australian article but interesting in the context of Chinese property investment.

http://world.einnews.com/article/228939234/aXdTPCBrskoCFnad

Once again the greedy foreign investors is just a red herring to divert attention from the real problem, which is easy easy cheap credit for the locals.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 01:28

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

etalian posted:

Once again the greedy foreign investors is just a red herring to divert attention from the real problem, which is easy easy cheap credit for the locals.

If only Canada kept stats like that EH?

# ? Oct 14, 2014 01:38

Buskas: Aug 31, 2004; ?

melon cat posted:

My conclusion is that there is simply no such thing as "good" debt, and that borrowing is a tool to be used properly. From the moment you sign that dotted line you need to forget any notion that the debt is "good". Heck, I had the "good" debt of student loans, but I sure as hell didn't feel "good" about it. It was like having a ball and chain attached to my neck. I couldn't get my life started until I paid that sucker off. And to think, I grew up hearing my friends and family telling me that "student debt is good debt". No. It wasn't good at all. And this whole commonly-held belief of "good debt" is what's going to sink the economy when increasing rates start to increase.

But it seems that you and I can at least agree that the whole Good/Bad Debt labelling is a simplistic viewpoint.

Yep, agreed on that point. And I see where you're coming from regarding your student debt and completely agree that the merits of taking on debt cannot be ascribed to an entire class of borrowing, be it student loans, mortgages, or whatever, and that it's a huge problem that many people think of these types of debt as being sound in any circumstance. The individual situation has to be considered with a level of knowledge and diligence that most people don't have or can't be bothered with when making financial decisions.

I still maintain that there are many situations in which most types of debt can be used responsibly. To go back to my examples in a bit more detail:

- While there's a risk that a proprietor's business crashes and burns and she ends up paying off debt from wages or, worse, goes bankrupt, a loan may be the only way to obtain the equipment to start up the business and give her the (eventual) freedom to operate independently and not be beholden to an employer. In many professions and trades this is common practice.
- Student loans may be the only option for a middle class student whose parents can't afford to pay for a professional education, and if that person has the talent and desire to make it then that debt will pay off - not only in earnings but in a challenging and fulfilling career. I'm aware of the many traps of student debt, especially in American colleges, but the cynic's view certainly does not always hold true here - many successful doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. pay for their education with debt.
- An affordable mortgage might place someone's family in a neighbourhood close to schools, lessons and sports that will help their kids flourish, where renting isn't a viable option. There's also the fact that in the right market conditions the long-term economics of ownership can be very significantly better than renting (I'm not sure when we'll see these market conditions in many areas of Canada again, but that we eventually will is the main topic of this thread).

# ? Oct 14, 2014 03:38

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

Let me warn you all, taking out student loans, even in Canada, because you are underfunded as. PhD student is a terrible idea.

Don't do it. You won't be employable when you finish, and even if you are lucky enough to get a tenure track job, you will still be paying down that debt when you're a loving 90 year old Emeritus.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 04:15

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

ZombieLenin posted:

Let me warn you all, taking out student loans, even in Canada, because you are underfunded as. PhD student is a terrible idea.

Don't do it. You won't be employable when you finish, and even if you are lucky enough to get a tenure track job, you will still be paying down that debt when you're a loving 90 year old Emeritus.

Yeah masters is pretty much the sweet spot for education.

Even better most companies pay for school, which helps avoid building up more long term debt.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 04:18

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-12/scotiabank-s-porter-calls-canada-bubble-fears-overblown.html

lol gently caress you Brian Porter

Why are you baying for the blood of uber-rich Chinese investors but not this awful troll?

# ? Oct 14, 2014 04:27

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Best death for someone like Porter would be getting crush by a incorrectly installed condo glass window similar to the famous Omen priest death.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 05:06

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

ZombieLenin posted:

Let me warn you all, taking out student loans, even in Canada, because you are underfunded as. PhD student is a terrible idea.

Don't do it. You won't be employable when you finish, and even if you are lucky enough to get a tenure track job, you will still be paying down that debt when you're a loving 90 year old Emeritus.

It really varies. If you're funded, getting a Ph.D in most of the STEM fields from a good school is perfectly reasonable, especially if you find research enjoyable or 'fulfilling'. The transition into industry really isn't that bad -- I have a math Ph.D, decided not to do a postdoc, and made close to 200k my first year out of grad school in industry (of course lol at making that anywhere near that much in Vancouver).

# ? Oct 14, 2014 05:19

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

blah_blah posted:

It really varies. If you're funded, getting a Ph.D in most of the STEM fields from a good school is perfectly reasonable, especially if you find research enjoyable or 'fulfilling'. The transition into industry really isn't that bad -- I have a math Ph.D, decided not to do a postdoc, and made close to 200k my first year out of grad school in industry (of course lol at making that anywhere near that much in Vancouver).

Trade you. Mine is Political Science. Critical theory emphasis.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 05:40

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

blah_blah posted:

It really varies. If you're funded, getting a Ph.D in most of the STEM fields from a good school is perfectly reasonable, especially if you find research enjoyable or 'fulfilling'. The transition into industry really isn't that bad -- I have a math Ph.D, decided not to do a postdoc, and made close to 200k my first year out of grad school in industry (of course lol at making that anywhere near that much in Vancouver).

blah_blah posted:

It really varies. If you're funded, getting a Ph.D in most of the STEM fields from a good school is perfectly reasonable, especially if you find research enjoyable or 'fulfilling'. The transition into industry really isn't that bad -- I have a math Ph.D, decided not to do a postdoc, and made close to 200k my first year out of grad school in industry (of course lol at making that anywhere near that much in Vancouver).

Curious what you do for work, in general terms of course, if you feel like sharing

# ? Oct 14, 2014 05:53

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

Lexicon posted:

Curious what you do for work, in general terms of course, if you feel like sharing

I'm a data scientist in SF. Mostly I analyze data using statistical techniques ranging in sophistication from 'counting' to 'building machine learning models'. My company does a lot of experimentation (A/B testing) so I analyze the results there and help PMs decide whether to ship a feature or not, I investigate how our users are actually using our product and help spec future features, and I try to automate the above two things as much as possible. I spend a lot of time writing SQL, but occasionally use other languages like Python or Javascript. I wouldn't say that my Ph.D is particularly relevant to my job, but most people on my team have a Ph.D.

blah_blah fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Oct 14, 2014

# ? Oct 14, 2014 08:27

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

My friends who bought a house got a 30 year mortgage, I thought that wasn't a thing anymore? I guess they must have put down a big downpayment.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 19:30

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

blah_blah posted:

I'm a data scientist in SF. Mostly I analyze data using statistical techniques ranging in sophistication from 'counting' to 'building machine learning models'. My company does a lot of experimentation (A/B testing) so I analyze the results there and help PMs decide whether to ship a feature or not, I investigate how our users are actually using our product and help spec future features, and I try to automate the above two things as much as possible. I spend a lot of time writing SQL, but occasionally use other languages like Python or Javascript. I wouldn't say that my Ph.D is particularly relevant to my job, but most people on my team have a Ph.D.

Awesome stuff, thanks for satisfying my curiousity

# ? Oct 14, 2014 20:37

jet sanchEz: Oct 24, 2001; Lousy Manipulative Dog

etalian posted:

Perhaps a longer time period would tell a different story?

My parents bought a house in Parkdale after the crash of 1990, it was about $180K. I remember being mad at them for buying a house in such a terrible neighbourhood but that was all we could afford and the house itself was very large and quite beautiful inside. Back then there were drugs everywhere, hookers on every corner and it wasn't safe at night. We sold it in 2011 for $650K; the neighbourhood isn't all that much better but the hookers are gone.

# ? Oct 14, 2014 20:56

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

triplexpac posted:

My friends who bought a house got a 30 year mortgage, I thought that wasn't a thing anymore? I guess they must have put down a big downpayment.

That's correct! If your downpayment's <20%, 25 years is the maximum amortization. If it's >20%, it's 35 years.

Because having a mortgage for 35 years is still totally okay and definitely won't derail a homeowner's retirement plans. :rolleye:

# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:36

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.vancourier.com/news/anatomy-of-a-deal-the-sale-of-vancouver-s-olympic-village-1.1421083

quote:

The city recouped $770 million, including Olympic Village presales, commercial and residential sales, sales of other Millennium Development buildings located throughout the city and the Aquilini purchase, city manager Penny Ballem explained in April.

Subtracting the fees the city was obliged to pay to the receiver and other parties leaves it with a $70 million surplus, according to Ballem.

But Rob Macdonald, president of Vancouver-based Macdonald Development Corp., noted that the city will never recoup $170 million out of the $200 million Millennium originally agreed to pay for the 17 acres of land in 2006.

�City taxpayers lost about $100 million,� Macdonald said.

best place on earth

# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:38

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

It doesn't matter how long your mortgage is because the value keeps going up. Doesn't matter if it's 100 years, if you live in a house for 5 years and it goes up 10% a year you walk away with 10% x 5, more if you do upgrades like granite countertops and stainless appliances. It's called building equity, they aren't making more land and Vancouver has Rich Chinese to the south and mountains to the north so it's in a unique position for real estate to only go up.

Also your mortgage doesn't get more expensive when your value goes up. So if you buy a 5 million dollar home and it goes up 10% you just made 500k, even if you got a 100 year mortgage and put no money down. There are no other costs or considerations!

Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 14, 2014

# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:41

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2014/10/13/bc-liberals-ignoring-food-security

quote:

But the Wake-Up Call report commissioned by VanCity points out that between 1991 and 2011, B.C. food crop production dropped by 20.4%.

And in 2010, 67% of all imported B.C. vegetables and 44% of imported fruit came from the U.S., with over half from California � where experts fear three years of extremely low rainfall may be the start of a �mega-drought� � that lasts decades.

So as news is dominated by ISIS terrorism in the Middle East and fear that deadly Ebola in West Africa is arriving in North America, it�s easy to see the value of reducing dependence on food imports in an uncertain world.

Unfortunately, our province is moving in the wrong direction.

The government pushed through changes earlier this year to make it easier to remove protected Agricultural Land Reserve farmland in the Interior, North and Kootenays.

That came despite Agricultural Land Commission statistics that protected farmland dropped 95,000 hectares between 1974 and 2012.

When Core Review Minister Bill Bennett introduced ALR changes in March, he claimed: �These improvements achieve our goals of supporting the ALC in its role as independent decision-maker, protecting our high-quality farmland and still supporting farmers to get ahead.�

lol we can eat granite counter tops instead

# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:46

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.biv.com/article/2014/10/property-transfer-tax-could-be-key-housing-afforda/

quote:

Administration would be as simple as adding a line to the current property transfer tax return declaring the citizenship and place of residence of the purchaser. The provincial government would keep the same revenue flow, people who are first-time buyers or living in their homes would pay less, and investors and speculators (from anywhere, including locals) would take a hit. Eliminating the tax entirely on an $800,000 home would drop its price by $14,000. It�s a start.

Noted dumb person and failed politician from a rich family, Peter Ladner has opinions

# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 19:38

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

Baronjutter posted:

It doesn't matter how long your mortgage is because the value keeps going up. Doesn't matter if it's 100 years, if you live in a house for 5 years and it goes up 10% a year you walk away with 10% x 5, more if you do upgrades like granite countertops and stainless appliances. It's called building equity, they aren't making more land and Vancouver has Rich Chinese to the south and mountains to the north so it's in a unique position for real estate to only go up.

Also your mortgage doesn't get more expensive when your value goes up. So if you buy a 5 million dollar home and it goes up 10% you just made 500k, even if you got a 100 year mortgage and put no money down. There are no other costs or considerations!

If you want to do proper Realtor(tm) math, you should note that if you only put 10% down and your house went up in value by 10% a year for 5 years, you will end up with an effective ROI on your down payment of (ignoring selling fees and mortgage interest) 500%.

# ? Oct 15, 2014 00:53

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

«‹›1521 »