|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Your numbers are nonsense. That's a tricky thing, includes all taxpayer data (teenagers and university students at home), is based on individual tax income (misses people who leave it in corporations - which doesn't really average out perfectly as very few of today's retirees sheltered a lifetime of income that way. Wasn't necessary before 80s.). Most egregiously, they entirely exclude a few forms of income like RRSP withdrawals and all capital gains as "one-time". [RRIFs are included, but melting down RRSP before forced conversion is popular among financially savvy]. One time for an individual maybe (but only maybe) but it still should average out across the population over time. That's all going to lead to certain problems in the top end of the income range, granted those may not quite extend down to the 80th percentile. My source was Environics' published numbers, which are no doubt questionable in their own way re: not actually reaching poor people.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
James Baud posted:That's a tricky thing, includes all taxpayer data (teenagers and university students at home), is based on individual tax income (misses people who leave it in corporations - which doesn't really average out perfectly as very few of today's retirees sheltered a lifetime of income that way. Wasn't necessary before 80s.). You are correct that the inclusion criteria for a population are very important. It's one of the reasons why these numbers are so fraught with problems. However, notwithstanding that, and even given the caveats you've offered about other factors (which I would agree are legitimate), your estimates are still too high. I don't know anything about Environics, so can't critique their methods, or their agenda. I would submit that census data is as close to the gold standard as it gets for this sort of data, and is way better methodologically than a poll using self-report data from a research firm. Sample size alone the census rocks it. And as a population health researcher, full enrolment (or as close as is going to be achieved) is way better than a sample of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:You are correct that the inclusion criteria for a population are very important. It's one of the reasons why these numbers are so fraught with problems. However, notwithstanding that, and even given the caveats you've offered about other factors (which I would agree are legitimate), your estimates are still too high. I don't know anything about Environics, so can't critique their methods, or their agenda. Agreed very much re: full population sample being the gold standard, but we definitely do have to be aware of its limitations on a topic like this. Another consideration I'd overlooked is the satellite families kicking around where most of the household income is offshore. This is a bit stale (data from beginning of July) but had 3,241 of them paying the speculation tax with tens of thousands of homes yet to file. This (Feb 2019) goes to some length trying to estimate numbers but mostly acknowledges lack of real data. Census 2016 had 960,890 households in Metro Vancouver CMA, so if we're definitely above 3% just from the early speculation tax data (nevermind evasion or families where the Canadian residents earned enough to owe no speculation tax) it feels reasonably safe to say we're talking about at least 4-5% of households. James Baud fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
half cocaine posted:Do your friends all have defined benefit pensions? Or is the theory that they don't need to save any money because their 2 million dollar houses will be worth 8 million in 30 years? Regardless of their situation, there's a lot of people out there expecting to use their current home to fuel their retirement. Not sure who is going to buy all of them, but you know. I'm sure someone will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Regardless of their situation, there's a lot of people out there expecting to use their current home to fuel their retirement. Not sure who is going to buy all of them, but you know. I'm sure someone will. Those people will be screwed. Especially when Brian Day wins his court challenge and private health care has an avenue in this country, and the boomers need to get money out to pay for their health care services, otherwise they won't get them in a timely way. If anyone thinks that the current level of expenditure in the health care system will be adequate to the task of looking after the boomer generation with fewer and fewer able to pay taxes, they're kidding themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
I work in a sort-of healthcare adjacent field. We did some forecasting on demand for our services over the next 30 years. We are expecting it to grow almost 3% every year until 2049. It really is a tidal wave of grey and lawd it's comin'!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
we have to get this rampant senior inflation under control
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Those people will be screwed. Especially when Brian Day wins his court challenge and private health care has an avenue in this country, and the boomers need to get money out to pay for their health care services, otherwise they won't get them in a timely way. If anyone thinks that the current level of expenditure in the health care system will be adequate to the task of looking after the boomer generation with fewer and fewer able to pay taxes, they're kidding themselves. I assume that millennials and zoomers will be conscripted into the newly formed Personal Support Worker wing of the Armed Forces and we'll be wiping asses during our tours of duty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Children of Men really has aged well and did a good job of nailing the right feel for the near future we are now plunging into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Children of Men really has aged well and did a good job of nailing the right feel for the near future we are now plunging into. It's one of those instances where the movie adaptation is far better than the book. Doesn't hurt that it's on point in terms of prescience and cinematography, probably the best movie of its decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Children of Men really has aged well and did a good job of nailing the right feel for the near future we are now plunging into. I've been saying this for years and it's only now that people outside of these forums are starting to believe me the only unrealistic part of the movie is the hopeful ending
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
I'm doing my part! <Stomps on bugs>
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Children of Men really has aged well and did a good job of nailing the right feel for the near future we are now plunging into. this bit is my jam lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ9J-dxEgY4
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Just reading from the first Vancouver archives, talking about the 1929 property crash:quote:These personal tragedies have not been without their compensating benefits. It is by such
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Just reading from the first Vancouver archives, talking about the 1929 property crash: Going forward the housing file will disrupt synergies between influencers and job creators #blessed
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
More Than Half of Canadas Q3 GDP Gain Was From Realtor Commissions ThisIsFine.jpeg and the country is absolutely not on the brink of economic collapse should we see '08 repeat (the beginnings of which we're watching rumble through the global economy already). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:More Than Half of Canadas Q3 GDP Gain Was From Realtor Commissions This is horrifying. I want a Potemkin economy for Christmas...oh wait, I have one!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
But you also have tar sands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Regardless of their situation, there's a lot of people out there expecting to use their current home to fuel their retirement. Not sure who is going to buy all of them, but you know. I'm sure someone will. I assume that there will be an initial glut of overpriced housing supply and then small 5-10% cuts will give way to panic selling. There can't be enough demand to support all this poo poo, especially in places nobody wants to live in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 06:20
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Maybe around 2015 or however many years ago when I started reading this thread, I fully bought into the notion that Vancouver didn't have a 'real' economy and was just a bubble of FIRE endlessly selling houses back and forth and jr miner grifters, however, in the last few years it feels more and more that Vancouver is legitimately developing an economy of real value. I see this more about "companies taking advantage of horrendously low wages" than anything glowing about Vancouver. I mean the city literally used "we have the shittiest wages of anywhere in the US and Canada" as their main selling point when trying to get Amazon HQ2.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
UnfortunateSexFart posted:I see this more about "companies taking advantage of horrendously low wages" than anything glowing about Vancouver. Without a doubt this trend of companies opening up shop in Vancouver is at its core part of a broader trend of diversification away from SF/Seattle for economic reasons. Even in the USA these big companies are looking at opening up shop in Austin and further flung places to get away from insane SF salaries. Vancouver and other Canadian cities have this advantage as well, but on top of that the weaker Canadian dollar in recent years has made Canada even more attractive. Regardless of the intention for foreign tech companies to open up shop, the end result is the most relevant thing, which is a big influx of jobs which may pay awful in a Silicon Valley context, but pay great in a historical Vancouver context. Suddenly there's thousands of more people making six figure salaries with downtown core jobs that can legitimately afford the lofty condo and home prices that we've been previously considering as absurd and disconnected from the local economy and local incomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Canadian debt is pretty awful. Went to Uni for like half a semester and they're taking $67 dollars from me at the start of every month. Like, student loan debts are pretty much the biggest source of debt in Canadian. That, and possibly credit card debit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Zerbra23 posted:Canadian debt is pretty awful. Went to Uni for like half a semester and they're taking $67 dollars from me at the start of every month. Like, student loan debts are pretty much the biggest source of debt in Canadian. That, and possibly credit card debit. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2018/05/canada-economy-household-debt-how-big-the-problem/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
half cocaine posted:https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2018/05/canada-economy-household-debt-how-big-the-problem/ quote:It is time for me to conclude. If Shakespeare were writing today, he might say that our financial system gives Canadians more choices than ever in deciding whether to be, or not to be, in debt. *worlds longest fart noise*
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Without a doubt this trend of companies opening up shop in Vancouver is at its core part of a broader trend of diversification away from SF/Seattle for economic reasons. Even in the USA these big companies are looking at opening up shop in Austin and further flung places to get away from insane SF salaries. Vancouver and other Canadian cities have this advantage as well, but on top of that the weaker Canadian dollar in recent years has made Canada even more attractive. Sadly, I think your analysis is on the mark. Our only real benefits here are cheap wages. That said, six figures doesn't buy you anything here either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
just poppin in to say you're a fuckin idiot if you said TJs does bad chicken at that price: you're wrong, and that's 4 thighs for 9 bucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
This video is pretty great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpIM73V6lfY&t=22s
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Zerbra23 posted:Canadian debt is pretty awful. Went to Uni for like half a semester and they're taking $67 dollars from me at the start of every month. Like, student loan debts are pretty much the biggest source of debt in Canadian. That, and possibly credit card debit. Hmm, I would have thought it was mortgages and then HELOCs, given real estate prices and how people have been cashing out equity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:just poppin in to say you're a fuckin idiot if you said TJs does bad chicken at that price: that has bones in it, so it's bad chicken
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
youre bad chicken
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Hmm, I would have thought it was mortgages and then HELOCs, given real estate prices and how people have been cashing out equity. Yeah, most discussions of household debt don't even mention student loans. https://globalnews.ca/news/4222534/canadian-student-loans-government-interest/ https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2018/05/canada-economy-household-debt-how-big-the-problem/ But apparently the total Canadian household debt is just over $2 trillion, while the total student loan debt is around $28billion. So student loans account for less than 2% of household debt. Student debt does account for about one in six bankruptcies in Ontario, though: https://www.hoyes.com/press/joe-debtor/the-student-debtor
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Sure, but bankruptcies are about net worth more than the presence or scale of debt. Even people with substantially positive net worth can have as substantial amounts of debt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Canadian student loan debt is like the least bad debt you can have though. The interest is so low, and the repayment terms so favourable it's almost a bad choice not to take out student loans
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Dec 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Arivia posted:that has bones in it, so it's bad chicken Nah, it's boneless
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 10:14
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:I assume that there will be an initial glut of overpriced housing supply and then small 5-10% cuts will give way to panic selling. There can't be enough demand to support all this poo poo, especially in places nobody wants to live in. What do you mean you don't want to buy my 8 bedroom estate in Coburg?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Yall ready for even more wealthy tears? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-speculation-tax-increased-to-2-1.5391309
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
With an exemption for people whose properties are only accessible by water, cool aka a Bowen Island cabin exemption.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:54
|
|
ARACHTION posted:With an “exemption for people whose properties are only accessible by water”, cool aka a Bowen Island cabin exemption. I can see people arguing "I drive over Burrard inlet/Fraser River therefore I am exempt"
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
The Bowen Island exemption is kinda irritating though mostly because Bowen insists on staying a sparsely populated resort town, when it's close enough to Downtown Vancouver and has good enough public transit connections that it should really be developed like any other Metro Vancouver town. In general the exemption for land only accessible by water is whatever fine because really we're talking about a handful of properties on Passage Island, Gambier, Indian Arm and Belcarra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Does "only accessible by water" include Vancouver Island? Or is it for houses that don't have roads going to them and are literally only accessible by boat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 17:19
|
|
