Cultural Imperial posted:

Man, remember when the price of food went nuts in 2008-9 and the economist was calling it the end of cheap food?




And then food got cheap again

Cultural Imperial posted:

Man, remember when the price of food went nuts in 2008-9 and the economist was calling it the end of cheap food?




And then food got cheap again

quote:

43 Crick Street Chatswood NSW 2067

Offers over $3,100,000


This newly built home (suitable for an overseas buyer) ticks every box for contemporary family living, blessed with a choice of light filled formal and casual living areas, effortless indoor/outdoor entertaining, premium finishes and child-friendly grounds. In a wonderfully tranquil, tree-lined street, it's a short walk to shops, Beauchamp park and Chatswood train station.

* Separate formal lounge plus upstairs retreat/rumpus
* Expansive, light filled open plan family room/kitchen
* Sleek designer gas kitchen with CaesarStone benches
* Stainless steel gas appliances and walk-in pantry
* Master bedroom with ensuite, 2nd bedroom with balcony
* Elegant bathrooms
* Abundant storage, ducted A/C, timber floorboards
* Internal access to double garage
* Undercover entertaining area with timber decking
* Fully fenced front and rear yards, grassy level lawns

etalian posted:

Places like Germany got it right by aiming for slightly deflationary home/rent prices.

Having a housing boom in addition to the bubble meltdown risk, sucks since it's hiking a basic cost of living expense.

Jerkwin posted:

What possible motivation could a person have for buying a house, verses renting one, when prices are deflationary? That sounds like a horrible housing market.

Jerkwin posted:

Renting would make more sense. Why buy a house on Monday when it'll be cheaper on Tuesday?

quote:

As Locke, a retired historian, points out, the Goerlitz authorities’ attitude is a striking illustration of how differently the German economy works. Rather than keep their noses out of the economy, German officials glory in influencing market outcomes. While the Goerlitz authorities are probably exceptional in the degree to which they micromanage house prices, a fundamental principle of German economics is to keep housing costs stable and affordable.

It is hard to quarrel with the results. On figures cited in 2012 by the British housing consultant Colin Wiles, one-bedroom apartments in Berlin were then selling for as little as $55,000, and four-bedroom detached houses in the Rhineland for just $80,000. Broadly equivalent properties in New York City and Silicon Valley were selling for as much as ten times higher.

Jerkwin posted:

I can see a static price, but I don't understand why anyone would want their assets to depreciate. Deflation hurts anyone with any kind of debt. I'm glad it works for the German market, making housing affordable for everyone is an admirable achievement. I suppose the German model would keep speculators out of the market.

Still, for most people, their house is their most valuable asset. It seems reasonable that most people would want that asset to appreciate in value.

PT6A posted:

It's my understanding, based on family that I have in Berlin, that long-term tenants in Germany also have more rights with regards to making improvements to rental properties, and otherwise being reasonably free of landlord interference.

Compare this with Calgary, where residents of one of the buildings affected by the blackout were told not to buy perishable food until agents of the landlord had "inspected their fridge." The inspections will be starting tomorrow, I believe they said. I don't believe in any bullshit about "pride of ownership" but I do believe in being able to tell anyone who wants in to my apartment to gently caress themselves.

RBC posted:

Perhaps you should stop being one of the poors and join the ranks of proud homeowners. If you don't actually own the property where you live, how can you expect to have any rights?

PT6A posted:

It's my understanding, based on family that I have in Berlin, that long-term tenants in Germany also have more rights with regards to making improvements to rental properties, and otherwise being reasonably free of landlord interference.

Compare this with Calgary, where residents of one of the buildings affected by the blackout were told not to buy perishable food until agents of the landlord had "inspected their fridge." The inspections will be starting tomorrow, I believe they said. I don't believe in any bullshit about "pride of ownership" but I do believe in being able to tell anyone who wants in to my apartment to gently caress themselves.

Jerkwin posted:

Renting would make more sense. Why buy a house on Monday when it'll be cheaper on Tuesday?

MickeyFinn posted:

I'm not saying deflation is a good thing, just that people would continue to buy houses for the same reasons they currently do, with the exception of the flippers. I'm not sure depreciation is a large impediment, people already by cars. Also, over the last few pages we have seen several articles with people talking about home ownership being a cultural or social imperative to advance in life. I don't think the housing market would be 'horrible', but that certainly isn't an endorsement of deflation.

In the 80s when mortgages were in the 10% range and appreciation wasn't, people still bought houses.

etalian posted:

There are lifestyle reasons to prefer owning such as more space and also not having to worry about leases/landlords like in a apartment.

It's big part of german economic policy since it helps avoid credit bubbles and also creates a more flexible labor supply:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnf...supposed-to-do/


Toronto vs Berlin



Toronto vs Munich

quote:

It is hard to quarrel with the results. On figures cited in 2012 by the British housing consultant Colin Wiles, one-bedroom apartments in Berlin were then selling for as little as $55,000, and four-bedroom detached houses in the Rhineland for just $80,000. Broadly equivalent properties in New York City and Silicon Valley were selling for as much as ten times higher.

quote:

Housing in Metro Vancouver is prohibitively expensive. There. Said that.

Now, can we please move on?

It’s a non-issue.

It’s a distraction that municipal candidates are wasting too much of their time on in their campaigns because — while they would eagerly tap into the collective angst and, let’s be honest, the simmering prejudices the issue inspires — there is practically nothing they can do about it. They are lying if they say they can.

Worse, they haven’t even examined the question of whether they should. (Or the cojones to admit that they shouldn’t.)

Do invested homeowners, many of whom have sizable mortgages, want municipal governments trying to devalue the worth of their homes in the name of affordability? Do they want their local governments trying to restrict the market forces that might lead to that devaluation? Because that’s the other side of this coin.

Or would they limit access to the market itself? And how would they do that?

Levy a surcharge on wealthy immigrants who buy but do not live here?

Great, but does anyone believe that a surcharge would have any significant effect on affordability? And what are the logistics and cost of levying that surcharge? Can it even be done? And would it deter wealthy immigrants from buying here?

And is levying a surcharge on wealthy immigrants consistent with our own beliefs? The largest number of foreign landowners in Florida, Arizona and California are Canadians. Snowbirds, mostly, or those well-off enough to buy distressed properties in those states at bargain basement prices. Would they have themselves placed under the same restrictions we would place immigrants?

Or how about we embrace the xenophobe’s answer to everything and limit the number of immigrants coming to Vancouver?

Even if it could be done, and it can’t, that’s a federal power, not a municipal one. And show me the municipal politician who would champion that cause in public, other than the one with the swastika tattooed on his bicep. Hands up any of you mayoral candidates who want to send that message to our immigrant communities, or to the global investment communities we try so hard to cultivate.

What about attracting more industry that would supply better paying jobs?

Absolutely. It should be a priority. But there’s not necessarily a correlation between higher incomes and better housing affordability. It could, in fact, be the opposite, with more money chasing a limited housing supply.

How about densification?

Great, it’s the best possible means of, at the very least, increasing the housing stock.

But show me the neighbourhood in Vancouver that hasn’t fought densification tooth and nail. There has been pushback on densification from every neighbourhood in the city, and the neighbourhood that has most bemoaned high housing prices — the wealthy west side — has fought densification the hardest. They would have it both ways: an edenic single-family neighbourhood in the middle of a major metropolitan area at prices last seen in a time capsule. Not possible.

The one honest voice I have heard on this issue — and I wish the guy was running for mayor — has been Tsur Somerville, director of UBC’s Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate.

“Cities,” Somerville said, “can contribute to (affordability) in terms of what they allow to be built. I don’t want to let cities off the hook in terms of the supply side.

“I think cities should do the most they reasonably can to ensure there is a variety of housing available across all neighbourhoods. I think cities and provinces should work together to help the most vulnerable because they need government help whether it’s social housing or housing vouchers.

“(But) tripling the supply of condos is not going to help the homeless. To the extent that we do not let single-family neighbourhoods ever, ever be touched, we’re not giving the full set of choices. And that’s what I have a problem with.

“But you give me the politician who’s willing to take on neighbourhood opposition to change.”

That’s the real issue in these municipal elections:

Finding leaders who would address issues they can affect, rather than pandering to those issues they can’t.

FrozenVent posted:

On the note of housing being deflatory and how that's bad because houses are people's biggest asset, they're also the only physical asset most people have that they consider to be an investment. Cars depreciate, electronic depreciate...

LemonDrizzle posted:

I don't agree with this at all. For a start, a house derives much of its value from the land it sits on and its location relative to other places, neither of which have any inherent reason to depreciate. Second, a well built house that is maintained properly won't exhibit appreciable physical deterioration for decades if not centuries so again, it's hard to see why it would depreciate appreciably over a timescale of years. Third, most of the things that make a house desirable (location and land value aside) are its size, layout, number of rooms, and appearance - only the last is liable to get worse over time, and again, that can be avoided with good maintenance. So why exactly should a house depreciate? It's not as though housebuilding technology advances particularly quickly and in any event, it's not especially hard to retrofit things like superior insulation or wiring onto older buildings if needs be.

etalian posted:

Robert Shiller looked at historical records for US housing and found that real estate value adjusted for inflation goes negative over time
http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-shiller-home-investment-a-fad-2013-2

quote:

Mayor Gregor Robertson says the city opened a homeless shelter in a downtown Vancouver neighbourhood before it had time to consult local residents because it needed to quickly create spaces for winter. But residents in the area say they’re going to fight what they see as a plan that transplants the Downtown Eastside to their neighbourhood.

The angry residents, who live in the district around the north end of the Granville Bridge that’s largely been built in the past 30 years, have not heard from any city official or politician about the surprise decision two weeks ago to open a shelter and convert a tourist hotel to housing for the homeless in their small area.

“We didn’t sign up for this. I’m worried [the Vision Vancouver councillors] are willing to sacrifice our neighbourhood for their agenda,” said Bill Vance, one of a growing group of concerned residents who live in small quadrant bordered by Burrard, Granville, False Creek and Pacific Boulevard.

The city made the announcement that it was opening an emergency winter shelter early at 900 Pacific St., the former Kettle of Fish restaurant, and converting the 157-unit Quality Inn on Howe Street, next to the Granville Bridge, to transitional housing for the homeless for two years before the owner redevelops the property.

Mr. Robertson said city staff have started doing outreach, but that the process is more rushed than usual.

“It is in the context of urgent need to create space before winter. We’re on a tight timeline.”

Many residents said they only heard about the announcement from television news or word of mouth. It came as the city was trying to clear Oppenheimer Park in the Downtown Eastside of campers who had been there for months, saying they were homeless or their rooming houses were too awful to stay in.

In contrast to other housing projects and winter shelters in Vancouver, where the province takes on almost all of the costs, the city is paying for everything up front. The mayor said he’s hopeful the province will agree to pitch in later.

Housing Minister Rich Coleman has said that’s not going to happen, since the city decided to act on its own.

In the meantime, the city appears to be scrambling to get operators in place for the homeless shelter at 900 Pacific St., open now, and for the Quality Inn, which is due to open in November.

The city’s communications department said a couple of times last week, when asked, that a decision on the operator for the two facilities was about to be announced, but then did not have anything finalized by the end of the week.

Some of the city’s experienced non-profit housing groups say they’re not sure what is happening, as they hadn’t heard about a request for proposals or even an informal call for interested operators.

In the meantime, residents are organizing to see what they can do to stop the projects or at least mitigate what they believe will be the impacts.

Mr. Vance, who works in the investment business and moved from a single-family house in Shaughnessy to downtown three years ago, said he felt very safe moving his children to the area originally.

But, he said, since the 900 Pacific St. shelter opened a couple of weeks ago, there have been people screaming at one another in the street outside and needles and condoms have been found near the local Montessori schools.

“What the city’s done is despicable,” said Mr. Vance. “There’s been a complete lack of transparency. And it stinks if the mayor is trying to wrap up people from the park in time for re-election.”

Mark Schulhof and Veronica Madore, residents from other buildings nearby, feel the same.

“This is not a strategic approach,” said Ms. Madore, who works as a corporate-training manager. “This is purely temporary. At least if there were some sign of what the long-term plan is but there isn’t. And this will affect tourism and the retail around that area.”

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-residents-speak-out-against-homeless-shelter/article21158747/




but seriously, exterminate all vancouverites

LemonDrizzle posted:

I don't agree with this at all. For a start, a house derives much of its value from the land it sits on and its location relative to other places, neither of which have any inherent reason to depreciate. Second, a well built house that is maintained properly won't exhibit appreciable physical deterioration for decades if not centuries so again, it's hard to see why it would depreciate appreciably over a timescale of years. Third, most of the things that make a house desirable (location and land value aside) are its size, layout, number of rooms, and appearance - only the last is liable to get worse over time, and again, that can be avoided with good maintenance. So why exactly should a house depreciate? It's not as though housebuilding technology advances particularly quickly and in any event, it's not especially hard to retrofit things like superior insulation or wiring onto older buildings if needs be.

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Also you're from the UK, where houses are built from brick and built to last. The North American approach is ... different. Houses built 100 years ago back when old-growth hardwood was still cheap can last if maintained. For houses built since then, it's a miracle if they're not falling apart after 40 years, even if they're properly maintained (not that most people bother).

melon cat posted:

That's not the point. What he's saying is that your primary residence isn't an asset/investment. And he's correct. Your primary residence isn't making you money.

LemonDrizzle posted:

This isn't really true - if you own the house you live in, you receive imputed rent.

ocrumsprug posted:

The last couple of days I have caught an ad on the radio in Vancouver on the way into work, but haven't been able to find out anything about it on the internet. Basically there is PRIME(TM) dockable waterfront land for sale, and if you come down to their event you will be able to purchase it directly from the bank. Water and sewage have already been built, so no need for a costly septic field (on waterfront land, gross.)

Presumably this is a development that initially started, and was subsequently foreclosed on. However, I cannot recall radio ads of this nature showing up on the radio. How long until it occurs to everyone that a bank directly selling waterfront property isn't a sign of a healthy market?

If anyone was paying closer attention to the ad, and has information or a link about it, please share.

LemonDrizzle posted:

This isn't really true - if you own the house you live in, you receive imputed rent.

melon cat posted:

Lexicon posted:

Dude. Calm down. A property purchase is an accounting exercise. On the expense side you have the things you mentioned. On the income side you have rents if you have tenants, and imputed rents if you live there (because owner-occupiers typically don't charge themselves rent, and allow themselves to live rent free). Either way, it's a benefit that flows from the asset - even if far too high a price was paid to get the asset in the first place.

It's not flowery theories - this is literally the accounting terminology. It also doesn't invalidate in any way your thesis that buying is a bad idea.

Coylter posted:

Would you mind trying to refute any of his points?

How do you make up for 200k in interest payments? How do you make up for the maintenance?

Where is the profit? Aka where is the "I put 20bucks in => I took 25 bucks out => Inflation was only worth 1$ => Hence this investment made me 4$" kind of reasoning.

edit: Also this is for a ridiculously low 3% rate.