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.

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

As long as you don't buy an overpriced house in Canada, you should be good to go. I feel like there is a epiphany there somehow, but I cannot quite put my finger on it.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 01:44

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I knew so many americans around 2006 who reacted like you'd just insulted them when mentioning the insanity of the US housing market.

Another prevailing attitude back then was, 'how dare you suggest I restrain myself from buying nice things that I deserve'.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:04

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Cultural Imperial posted:

I knew so many americans around 2006 who reacted like you'd just insulted them when mentioning the insanity of the US housing market.

Another prevailing attitude back then was, 'how dare you suggest I restrain myself from buying nice things that I deserve'.

Post-purchase rationalization is endemic in humanity though. That's why you see grown men go apeshit if you point out that the videogame they bought for $50 is garbage.

As an aside, this forum has some amazing data on the staggering volume of unsold developments on the Sunshine Coast: http://vancouverpeak.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12

Rime fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Oct 21, 2014

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:09

DailyDumSum: May 21, 2004; Fresh Daily

I have never bought a poo poo game for $50 dollars. You take that back sir!

On a separate note, I recently asked if people can tell me if buying a condo is a good idea or not in toronto. I'm sorry that I didn't give all that much information, and seemed like I was all set in buying and wants people to proof I'm wrong. That was not the case, it was my relatives that insist the time to buy is now (they quoted some twisted mashed up theories of China is going to collapse in their own economic bs and all the rich Chinese people are trying to bury their money in someplace safe. They already started doing that in Vancouver and Toronto is next)

While I am not entirely sure if their theories do not have a grain of truth, I do know that I've exhausted all my points of why not to buy in an overheated market, and wanted some fresh points to jab back at them.

Currently I pointed out that the real estate person got back to me a month later, and said that the price of the place I was looking at dropped down in price (aka because it didn't sell). Nothing makes me less interested in a condo if the owner can't even get rid of it, which I'm sure all the real estate agents know about.

DailyDumSum fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Oct 21, 2014

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:25

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

As one of the last places I looked at before deciding buying was loving stupid, I kept getting updates on this townhouse in an area of town I'd never live in (right next to a sports park that gets a lot of games and loud shows and is along a hobo bottle caravan route as well). It was a 2br townhouse built in the 90's. lovely layout and they wanted about 350k for it. I expressed interest, looked at the neighbourhood, price, and layout and forgot about it. But for months and months I got updates on it which were entertaining.

It was marketed as a PRICED TO SELL urgent sell-off because it was owned by a military guy who never checked if he could rent it out, was told no, and being military he had to move so it was sitting empty.

A couple months later I got an update that it was reduced by about 20k and now it's truly priced to sell because the seller is in the military and needs to sell asap. A few months later I got an update that it was "back on the market" and the seller was very motivated to sell. The realtor sent out an email to anyone expressing interest and they seemed written specifically to each person. Rather than just a price update note it was a whole letter about how I expressed interest in the condo but never saw it and now that it's back on the market with a super reduced bargain price I should come by and see it because I'll fall in love with their new staging. The tone was also almost trying to guilt people. Like "hey this MILITARY guy needs to sell it's ruining his life hanging onto this townhouse you guys need to step up and help this brave serviceman!"

I wish I had kept track of what it eventually sold for, and what the guy bought it for. I wonder if it's as hilarious as my friend's military friend whose self proclaimed "obsessed with finance" lost 60k on a newly built condo by the navy base that he bought as an investment and to live in for 3 years. "Housing by the navy base is always in high demand!".

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:41

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Are your relatives aware of Xi's anti-corruption probe?

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:43

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

DailyDumSum posted:

On a separate note, I recently asked if people can tell me if buying a condo is a good idea or not in toronto. I'm sorry that I didn't give all that much information, and seemed like I was all set in buying and wants people to proof I'm wrong. That was not the case, it was my relatives that insist the time to buy is now (they quoted some twisted mashed up theories of China is going to collapse in their own economic bs and all the rich Chinese people are trying to bury their money in someplace safe. They already started doing that in Vancouver and Toronto is next)

Thanks for the update. Now, as far as your situation goes I'll tell the same thing that I tell everyone who's trying to "time" the market- never try to catch a falling knife. Trying to time the market, whether it's real estate or stocks or whatever, is an incredibly foolish, difficult thing to do.

The best thing for you to do is break down the costs of renting VS buying a condo. Then consider your lifestyle, employment situation, and family situation and make your decision from there. And whatever you end up doing, simply make sure that the time is right for you, and that it's financially sustainable. Don't let others pressure you into buying on impulse because of some speculative bullshit they heard on the news. That's how people get financially-screwed.

melon cat fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 21, 2014

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:44

Monaghan: Dec 29, 2006

DailyDumSum posted:

I have never bought a poo poo game for $50 dollars. You take that back sir!

On a separate note, I recently asked if people can tell me if buying a condo is a good idea or not in toronto. I'm sorry that I didn't give all that much information, and seemed like I was all set in buying and wants people to proof I'm wrong. That was not the case, it was my relatives that insist the time to buy is now (they quoted some twisted mashed up theories of China is going to collapse in their own economic bs and all the rich Chinese people are trying to bury their money in someplace safe. They already started doing that in Vancouver and Toronto is next)

I've pretty much flat out told friends in toronto and vancouver that, for the love of god, to not buy a house/condo whatever. Worst thing one guy did was rent a kinda expensive apartment, so thank god my friends aren't complete dumbasses.

Monaghan fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 21, 2014

# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:45

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

ocrumsprug posted:

As long as you don't buy an overpriced house in Canada, you should be good to go. I feel like there is a epiphany there somehow, but I cannot quite put my finger on it.

You will be okay => you do not buy an overpriced house in canada

house is in canada => house is overpriced

house is in canada

~ you do not buy an overpriced house in canada

~ you will be okay

# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:01

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Yes, every property in Canada available for purchase is completely overpriced, and of course, that could never carry over to rental rates where rental availability is around 1% and our mayor is essentially begging landlords not to raise rents to market values. A good, logical opinion.

EDIT: You do realize that "looking at the numbers" applies in both directions, right? I agree that home ownership is, the majority of the time (and 99% of the time in Vancouver and Toronto) not the right option, but you have to at least do some calculations to figure out which is the better option.

PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Oct 21, 2014

# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:33

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

it was a joke dude, relax

# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:49

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

If you are concerned about your landlord's cost for his rental, or what the mayor has to say about it, maybe the problem is you.

You do realize that the 1% rental availability does not include anything other than purpose built rental units? So every single house and condo owned by ~~Joe Sixpack~~Warren Buffett in your fine city isn't counted in that figure.

Also what JawKnee said you big baby.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:55

DailyDumSum: May 21, 2004; Fresh Daily

ocrumsprug posted:

You do realize that the 1% rental availability does not include anything other than purpose built rental units? So every single house and condo owned by ~~Joe Sixpack~~Warren Buffett in your fine city isn't counted in that figure.

I had no idea that the 1% rental availability is based on only this. Is there a source that I can read more about this?

# ? Oct 21, 2014 20:30

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

I am pretty convinced though that condos are giant money laundering machines for filthy foreign money. The fact that people buy them and live in them is purely incidental to that primary function.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 20:32

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.

DailyDumSum posted:

I had no idea that the 1% rental availability is based on only this. Is there a source that I can read more about this?

The CMHC surveys that form the basis of those figures are based only on designated rental stock, which is largely 70s era purpose-built rental buildings in order neighborhoods. They don't track rented condos, basement suites, etc.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 20:35

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Franks Happy Place posted:

The CMHC surveys that form the basis of those figures are based only on designated rental stock, which is largely 70s era purpose-built rental buildings in order neighborhoods. They don't track rented condos, basement suites, etc.

Looking for the methodology to answer his question, it does appear that they are now starting to track secondary rentals. I suspect that the data probably has a lot of garbage in it.

quote:

METHODOLOGY FOR SECONDARY RENTAL MARKET SURVEY

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) conducts a survey of the Secondary Rental Market (SRMS) in
September and October to estimate the relative strengths in the secondary rental market which is defined as those dwellings not
covered by the regular RMS � rented single-detached homes, semi-detached (double) homes, rented freehold row/townhomes,
rented duplex apartments (i.e., one-above-other), rented accessory apartments (separate dwelling units that are located within
the structure of another dwelling type), rented condominiums (can be any dwelling type but are primarily apartments), and one
or two apartments which are part of a commercial or other type of structure.

The SRMS has three components which are conducted in selected CMAs:
� A Household Rent Survey of all households to collect information about rents.
� A Condominium Apartment Rent Survey of households living in condominium apartments to collect information about rents.
� A Condominium Apartment Vacancy Survey of condominium apartment owners to collect vacancy information.

All three surveys are conducted by telephone interviews. For the condominium apartment vacancy survey, information is
obtained from the owner, manager, or building superintendent and can be supplemented by site visits if no telephone contact is
made. For the other two surveys, information is collected from an adult living in the household. All surveys are conducted in
September and October, and the results reflect market conditions at that time.

CMHC publishes the number of units rented and vacancy rates for the condominium vacancy survey. For the condominium rent
and household rent surveys, the average rent is published.

Every year CMHC reviews the method of estimation for Household Rent Survey, which may result in some changes to
previously published estimates. All statistics in this report are reflective of the new method of estimation.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 20:42

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/10/20/Rising-House-Prices-Screwing-Millenials/

quote:

Vancouver has morphed into a machine for screwing millennials.

Unless we do something drastic, we will have deprived that generation of productive 20- to 35-year-olds the ability to own a house in Vancouver. If you think that's no big deal, consider this: each person shut out of affordable home ownership in Vancouver is consigned to the screwed side of the increasingly widening global wealth divide.

That's right. Vancouver's perverse real estate market is a textbook example of the suddenly fashionable realization that the rich are getting way richer at the expense of an evaporating middle class. Further down I'll propose how Vancouver could instead be a laboratory for at least partly reversing that trend by enacting a simple and straightforward policy change.

But first, let's look at where we've arrived and why.

Unlike Vancouver's baby boomers, their children and grandchildren do not have, and apparently will never have, the money to buy a house in Vancouver, not in its leafy single-family residential neighbourhoods anyway. The trend for this generation is to either rent for life, or move out to the greener fields of the suburbs to buy. The burbs beckon particularly when the urge to breed strikes. Residents 15 years or younger constitute a 25 per cent greater share of Surrey's population than they do of Vancouver's, and this disparity is increasing with time.

It is often pointed out that half of the residents of the City of Vancouver are renters, so homeownership should not be the goal, affordability should. Thus the city's recent efforts to increase the production of new purpose-built rental units, the production of which has been stalled since the 1980s when tax laws benefiting owners of rental properties were repealed and new ones benefiting the owners of condominiums were enacted. But despite the fact that Vancouver's population is half renters, a possibly propitious situation, this disguises the fact that in previous generations the status of renter was, for many, a temporary not a permanent condition. Increasingly it looks as if renting is to be a permanent condition for middle-class Vancouver residents, at least for those who don't leave the city.

That factor is but one in a perfect storm making Vancouver a poster city for what drives wealth disparity.

The crappy salaries

As Andy Yan, the researcher and urban planner at Bing Thom Architects has pointed out, college graduates who stay in Vancouver will likely make significantly less than they would in any other major city in Canada, while the cost of owning a single family home is higher than in any other Canadian city, and a ridiculous five times higher than in Montreal. Certainly an immediate effort to attract high paying jobs to the city (any jobs, resource based or green) is to be applauded. But it stretches the imagination to expect family income that has been stuck at around $60,000 for 25 years to move very quickly, if at all.

Why? Because wages have been stagnating in every developed country for decades and particularly since the recent global financial crisis. Since 1980 there has been a steady decline in the percentage of increased GNP that goes to those making in the bottom 90 per cent of incomes. That's basically all of us. This most recent "jobless recovery" was one that, for the first time in recent history, saw an absolute decline in the money available to the lowest 90 per cent of incomes. This means that not just all of the money gained in the recovery went to the rich, but they got some of the money that was previously in the hands of everyone else too.

Welcome (back) to Late-Stage Capitalism

Is this trend likely to change? Barring some global calamity probably not, at least not according to the rock star of 21st century economics, Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and author of the best selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century. For those outside of academia it may seem odd to assign rock star status to an academic economist, but in this case it is merited. Google his name to confirm his status: almost four million results since he emerged last year from obscurity. What's all the fuss? He proved that rich get richer while the rest get poorer. This may seem obvious to most but until Piketty hit the scene nobody really had the numbers to prove it. He is the first economist to access 300 years worth of economic data to conclude that, all things being equal, those with money will continue to own more and more of everything.

The math is simple. If you have $100 million and it returns five per cent you get five million cash a year. If you don't take it out as income and roll it over into more income producing investments instead, you don't lose it to income taxes. If you do this year after year after year it only takes 16 years to end up with $200 million, and after another 16 years $400 million. If you only have one child to leave it to they can continue the game and double it again in 16 more years. Within a reasonable amount of time you are a billionaire and all you do with your time is look for more assets to buy, which will themselves return your dependable five per cent, forever. And when you think of assets to buy in the carrying out of this process, there really isn't a big selection. There are stocks, bonds and real estate. That's pretty much it.

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to see that if you are one of these fortunate few playing the game, eventually you will own everything in the world, or at least you and the 100,000 people on the planet like you would. And in a global slow growth period where returns on investments outpace global GNP growth (which lately has been far lower than five percent in all developed countries), the economy can't grow fast enough to produce new wealth to mitigate this trend. Eventually more and more wealth ends up in fewer and fewer hands until a limited number of people own pretty much everything -- including your house.

We've been here before

This sounds apocalyptic but it's not unprecedented. This was the way the world worked back when Jane Austen was writing Pride and Prejudice. Anyone in that world who had no capital (in those days capital was mostly in the form of farmland) was only eking by -- living in rented cottages and getting paid a wage only sufficient for meager meals and necessary clothes.

What Piketty makes alarmingly clear is that this condition might have endured forever if not for the sequential catastrophes of the First World War, the Depression, and then the Second World War. This 40-year period of disruption had the effect of undercutting the inevitably inequitable distribution of wealth by basically destroying it. It was destroyed by the bombs that fell on factories, by the inflation that made bonds worthless, and by the emergency taxes on wealth that most nations enacted to insure their survival. All of these catastrophes had the oddly salubrious effect of giving an emerging middle class a larger and larger share of a nation's total wealth, mostly in the form of home ownership. But sadly this condition only persisted between 1950 and 1980, and has been largely reversed since the "Reagan/Thatcher Revolution."

Evidence? Today we have much lower tax rates on capital gains. Income tax rates on the very rich have fallen dramatically (from 90 per cent after the Second World War to around 40 per cent now). Calls for the elimination of inheritance taxes, our last real tax on perpetual wealth, are gaining more and more traction. Thus, a condition which we all took to be the bedrock of modern democracies, an enduring middle class (as defined by home ownership, an ability to raise a family, an affordable college education for your kids and a solid net worth as you approach retirement), and a shifting group of the rich (in that the middle class had a chance to get rich and the rich might not stay that way forever), appears to have been an ephemeral condition brought on by factors that we do not want to repeat.

Our drift toward a society not unlike that described by Jane Austen seems irreversible. If she lived in Vancouver today, perhaps her next book would be titled Sense of Inevitability.

Back to the housing question

What has all this to do with housing and Vancouver's financially overstressed millennials? Everything.

With the world awash in cash those who have it are desperate for places to put it. The amount of money coming in to this small group per year is staggering, and the world simply does not have many places to park it. Bonds, stocks and real estate. That's it. And with bond returns at a 40-year low, the ten-year return on stocks still under five per cent even after recovery, well, what does that leave you? It leaves the house on your block. The ten-year appreciation for single-family real estate on the west side of Vancouver was an astonishing 300 per cent.

Think about it. If you live somewhere like Shanghai or Manila or Minsk, and you need to park one or two million dollars, what are you going to do? You are going to park it in real estate. You park it in nice places: Singapore, Sydney, London, New York, San Francisco, or -- you guessed it -- Vancouver. It doesn't make a bit of difference to you if the house prices bear zero relation to the average income of those who toil at ordinary jobs and who have to try to live here.

The real estate markets in such cities are more tied to global investors' aims than local wage earners' capacities. You, dear Vancouver college graduate, are literally out in the cold.

A proposal

What to do? Well, the fundamental trend seems unlikely to change so we can't hold our breath for that. Piketty suggests that absent another global war, depression or French revolution, the next few decades appear headed for some sort of end-state economy where those with the money buy up most of the world's capital assets while everyone with an actual job gets squeezed out of the market. The only suggestion he can come up with is a global tax on wealth, and good luck with that one.

But while we wait for the revolution there is one thing that might help Vancouver millennials capitalize on their last chance at a piece of the global wealth pie. Carve up Vancouver into smaller pieces.

Right now the average single-family unimproved bungalow in Vancouver is valued at about $1.2 million (and most of that is land value). Given that the average family income in this city is around $60,000, this is about five times too expensive to buy because the rule of thumb is that average house should cost four times the average family income.

A simple solution emerges. Split that average home into smaller more affordable parts. Currently subdividing homes into separate ownerships is prohibited in RS-1 zoned areas, and RS-1 zoning covers over 60 per cent of all residential lands in the city. But if you could split a single family bungalow in Killarney or Dunbar into five units of various sizes, the purchase price would be, in simplified terms, $250,000. A figure much more approachable for families earning the average wage.

Of course there would be reconstruction costs associated with this change in tenure: new bathrooms, dormers, additions, more spacious basements, lane houses etc. But at even gut rehab prices of $150 per square foot that adds roughly $100,000 to the price of each of the five units -- $350,000 is (with gritted teeth) doable.

You need great architects

Architectural skill is required to insure such alterations respond both to existing architectural and neighbourhood context. Happily we have scores of examples of projects where this has been achieved. In the Kitsilano district between 10th and Cornwall and Alma and MacDonald, a special zoning district to do something quite similar has been in place since the mid-1990s. There, single family homes can be "stratified" into three individually owned units per parcel. The results are almost universally quite attractive. The stipulation for adding this density has been a requirement that, even while in many cases more than doubling the habitable square area of the structure, the existing structure must be reused. This tends to result in a proliferation of dormers, additions, side houses and lane houses added to the house and site.

I have had the good fortune of living in that area for 20 years and have made a study of these changes. The most important change? The area has become more and more alive as the decades pass. Unlike Coal Harbour and Dunbar, two districts where it seems the vampires have struck in the night, this part of Kits retains its children, and its life. The local schools are full, the resident demographic ranges in age, and in comparison to Dunbar anyway, in income. Sadly this area has also been priced out of the range of the average millennial, but it would not be such a stretch if the city took the next step of allowing four and then five strata units per site.

It's true that squeezing three units out of a 3,200 square foot lot is a lot easier than squeezing five units out of the same sized lot. But it's not impossible. Good architects can do it. And the need seems desperate. The alternative is that the next generation will not be able to compete for space in the large majority of this city, and will never have the option of locking down a share of the wealth pie in time for it to do them any good later in life.

We really need a strategy that lets our children compete with those who can afford a $1.2 million home. Today's millennials, by and large, cannot.

The fact that this strategy will reinvigorate parts of the city that seem to be losing their vitality -- with aging residents, emptying schools, empty buses and shops without customers -- seems a huge bonus as well. [Tyee]

Great article up until the point his solution to the problem becomes 'make more developers rich'.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:24

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

I thought the solution we all have been waiting on is wait for boomers to die so we can inherit their wealth.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:35

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/10/20/Rising-House-Prices-Screwing-Millenials/

Great article up until the point his solution to the problem becomes 'make more developers rich'.

Actually, it's "make developers rich and cram young people into ludicrous slumlike rabbit hutches carved out of loving bungalows"

yes, i would like to live in a house one-fifth the size of an actual house that sounds real good also i would really like to pay a quarter of a million dollars for the privilege of doing this also i was repeatedly dropped on my head as a child

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:36

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

ascendance posted:

I thought the solution we all have been waiting on is wait for boomers to die so we can inherit their wealth.

Ah yes, the "waiter" strategy. I know a couple waiters.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:38

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Cultural Imperial posted:

Ah yes, the "waiter" strategy. I know a couple waiters.

I know it's been linked before but I love the article so much.

quote:

Wills lawyer Les Kotzer was glancing out his window when a sports car pulled up and a middle-aged man got out. The man, sporting a full-length mink coat and a Rolex, strolled into Kotzer's office with his wife.

Her tennis bracelet caught the lawyer's eye � largely because its diamonds set off a mini light show. When the couple told Kotzer they lived in Rosedale, he asked what they did for a living.

"Oh, he's a waiter," said the wife with a laugh.

"What restaurant?" asked a perplexed Kotzer.

"Not that kind of waiter," the wife shot back. "He's waiting for his inheritance."

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:42

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hey, just wanted to settle yesterday's discussion about depreciation.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/10/20/2014172/secular-stagnation-and-the-paradox-of-worth/

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:45

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Cultural Imperial posted:

Ah yes, the "waiter" strategy. I know a couple waiters.

Seriously though, when boomers start dropping, house prices will have to go down, right?

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:46

Mexplosivo: Mar 8, 2007; The monetary system is not ratified by society yet it shapes and dictates our entire existence...

ascendance posted:

I thought the solution we all have been waiting on is wait for boomers to die so we can inherit their wealth.

Good luck with that. Let's see what's left after they're done with their pursuit for eternal life (botox, plastic surgery, etc) and bathroom renos.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:48

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

Mexplosivo posted:

Good luck with that. Let's see what's left after they're done with their pursuit for eternal life (botox, plastic surgery, etc) and bathroom renos.

Well maybe if we worked harder and weren't good-for-nothing layabouts we could be rich like them!

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

ascendance posted:

Seriously though, when boomers start dropping, house prices will have to go down, right?

I'm not really convinced anything is going to bring prices down other than restricting access to credit.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 21:56

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

People want houses, they want to own, it's culturally ingrained and it seems the only reason trends of post-boomers not owning is simply because they can't afford, not because they don't want to or are financially literate. As long as the credit is there they will max out every available form of debt to get that housing. Not only that, but they will continue to pressure government to "do something about affordability" which generally always means hand-jobs to developers and even more available debt.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 22:00

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I should add that restricting access to credit is the only thing that will bring prices down, except for say, a dramatic reduction in gdp.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 22:05

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Cultural Imperial posted:

I'm not really convinced anything is going to bring prices down other than restricting access to credit.

The thing is that restricting access to credit won't actually bring prices down in terms of monthly payment and affordability for people, because people will just end up paying more money in interest payments.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 23:20

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

ascendance posted:

The thing is that restricting access to credit won't actually bring prices down in terms of monthly payment and affordability for people, because people will just end up paying more money in interest payments.

Credit includes mortgages.

# ? Oct 21, 2014 23:23

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.

ascendance posted:

I am pretty convinced though that condos are giant money laundering machines for filthy foreign money. The fact that people buy them and live in them is purely incidental to that primary function.

Hey.

Some of them are brothels.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 01:15

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

peter banana posted:

Hey.

Some of them are brothels.

Ahahahaha

After my parents sold their house, I accompanied them on a couple apartment rental viewings in yaletown. There was this one particular apt that was built in the early 2000s that stood out. It was 2pm, we were buzzed in and got into the elevator. In walks a super tanned woman wearing a pink juicy couture jumpsuit with nails and makeup done up to the 9s.

JUST SAYIN'

# ? Oct 22, 2014 01:31

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Cultural Imperial posted:

Credit includes mortgages.

Ah, you mean tightening up lending requirements across the board, not just hiking interest rstes,

# ? Oct 22, 2014 01:47

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Cultural Imperial posted:

Ahahahaha

After my parents sold their house, I accompanied them on a couple apartment rental viewings in yaletown. There was this one particular apt that was built in the early 2000s that stood out. It was 2pm, we were buzzed in and got into the elevator. In walks a super tanned woman wearing a pink juicy couture jumpsuit with nails and makeup done up to the 9s.

JUST SAYIN'

in Toronto, brothels perform the vital function of filling up space in distressed suburban strip malls.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 01:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

ascendance posted:

Ah, you mean tightening up lending requirements across the board, not just hiking interest rstes,

Hiking interest rates is like parallel parking a monster truck. The BoC only cares about targeting inflation at a rate of 2% (or something) per year. When you raise interest rates, you affect a very large amount financial 'tools', of which mortgages are a part of.

That said, it's fun to consider that FIRE consists of 30% of Canada's GDP so maybe we can start to consider that any inflation target could be considered a direct response to the housing (FIRE) industry.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 01:53

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Cultural Imperial posted:

Hiking interest rates is like parallel parking a monster truck. The BoC only cares about targeting inflation at a rate of 2% (or something) per year. When you raise interest rates, you affect a very large amount financial 'tools', of which mortgages are a part of.

That said, it's fun to consider that FIRE consists of 30% of Canada's GDP so maybe we can start to consider that any inflation target could be considered a direct response to the housing (FIRE) industry.

The decline of the mfg sector means that the housing industry is it for low skill workers. Its kind of why we are dealing with such lovely urban sprawl over here in Toronto, and why every level of government is lining up to suck the dick of developers.

Edit: I should say, in the urbanized areas of Canada which dont have oil.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 02:07

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

ascendance posted:

The decline of the mfg sector means that the housing industry is it for low skill workers. Its kind of why we are dealing with such lovely urban sprawl over here in Toronto, and why every level of government is lining up to suck the dick of developers.

Edit: I should say, in the urbanized areas of Canada which dont have oil.

I was pondering the other day about how, when you really get down to it, automation and the globalization of migrant workers have pretty much destroyed the unskilled blue collar labor market in Canada / the west in general.

It's scary how little opportunity many people have to support themselves outside of the oil patch.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 03:47

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Rime posted:

I was pondering the other day about how, when you really get down to it, automation and the globalization of migrant workers have pretty much destroyed the unskilled blue collar labor market in Canada / the west in general.

It's scary how little opportunity many people have to support themselves outside of the oil patch.

And now any blue collar workers who meekly ask for a wage they can feed and house them selves on, or cushy luxuries like "basic workplace safety" or "labour rights" find them selves replaced by TFW's because Canadians are just spoiled and lazy and these companies just can't possibly break even coddling and over-paying canadians.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 03:51

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

STOP HOLDING SMALL BUSINESS HOSTAGE YOU FUCKS

# ? Oct 22, 2014 04:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 01:44

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Baronjutter posted:

And now any blue collar workers who meekly ask for a wage they can feed and house them selves on, or cushy luxuries like "basic workplace safety" or "labour rights" find them selves replaced by TFW's because Canadians are just spoiled and lazy and these companies just can't possibly break even coddling and over-paying canadians.

I was just reading am article the other day about how reserve unemployment numbers arent counted, which is how Sasketchewan posts figures that are low enough that they can bring in TFWs.

# ? Oct 22, 2014 04:20

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

«‹›1520 »