|
In World's Best-Run Economy, House Prices Keep Falling -- Because That's What House Prices Are Supposed To Do
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Freezer posted:why this 'houses can only go UP!' attitude is so firmly lodged in people's brains is beyond me. In many desirable areas, the number of people is increasing faster than the number of homes. Especially the case for homes with certain characteristics that are hard to replicate, like "water view", "close to downtown", "large yard". When there are more consumers than goods, you get upwards price pressure. Very few Canadian jurisdictions, if any, are taking steps to alleviate that pressure in meaningful ways.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
At least mortgage interest isn't deductible in Canada. That causes some crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Bathtub in master bedroom is a thing, dude. That one is uglier than most, but the concept holds up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
leftist heap posted:Goddamn, now the Germans are genociding people's home equity? Wait until you hear about the lebensrenovation...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:There are local families paying most of their income for deathtrap tenements here because the alternative is homelessness, but the government has no interest in doing anything about that. What would an interested government do about that? Subsidize them relocating to Edmonton? The US seems to place refugees more often in smaller cities rather than the megatropolises, I wonder if Canada is too urbanized for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Yeah, but May and June? Festival season? Santropol sandwiches on Mont Royal while the hippies drum and play hacky-sack? That's some good poo poo. Tech VC scene in Montreal isn't terrible, at least as of a year ago. For a while it was more vibrant than Toronto's, but I think that's not the case any more. Probably harder to get funding for non-consumer stuff, though, because the return cycle is longer and there isn't a *ton* of money around to fill those funds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:lol santropol sandwiches get the gently caress out of here Not even close to the worst thing (taxis), but also they're right at MR. You could truck stuff from Atwater or Jeanne-Mance, but that's what peasants do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
etalian posted:Vancouver a refuge for rich people who would probably get executed in their own home countries for theft and corruption. Including Canadians.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Still pretty loving exciting when it's -40C and the drivers are Mario Karting their way through half-plowed streets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Really, smart people would be looking at ways to increase the number of jobs locally that could support living there but that is too much forethought and effort for the typical city council member. Better to just build more suburbs and pray. What can a city councilor realistically do that will create a meaningful number of jobs comparable in salary and opportunity to those people have in Toronto?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:ah yes, those useless rural towns where people grow all of our food so that we can eat. if only everyone worked in a call centre and lived in the basement rental of an overextended lawyer in the big city, we would have a much more efficient economy If even 10% of Canada's towns under 50K people are dominated by agriculture, I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice. I will find 500 other people who want to live on the edge of some random northern lake. We will move there. You will build and maintain roads, water, police and fire coverage, medical facilities, schools, banks, and phone access. Let me know when you're ready.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:its cool that you cant prove any of this, on the other hand, you know, statistics canada and recorded history of the human race re: development of rural communities around farming Can't prove any of what? Fewer than 300K people work in agriculture in Canada (including corporate workers in big cities). In 2011 the rural population was 6M, where "rural" means in cities <1K people *and* lower density than 400 ppl/sqkm. The vast majority of people in rural towns have nothing whatsoever to do with growing our food (even assuming that no agricultural products are exported). Certainly the people commuting from Barrie don't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:holy poo poo you're a loving retard lol Are you having a stroke?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
No, we've hosed over natives enough. It's appropriate for their lifestyle choice to be subsidized by Canada. "I want to have a lake view", "I don't like to see my neighbors", "non-white people are icky", or "I want a 5 acre lot" aren't appropriate luxuries to support as a matter of policy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:According to statistics Canada Canadian farmers made up 10.3% of the total rural population. Yes, so it's very unlikely that they dominate 10% of towns, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well presumably those farmers need the same services as everyone else. Or do you demand that farming towns should not have gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc.? No, I think they can have all those things, as can any town. I think they should be carried by the residents, and not subsidized by everyone else. A farming town has a local industry, it can have civic services proportional to its size and whatever secondary industries (movie theatres, bookstores, restaurants) can be economically supported. But again, farming is a small minority of rural population. It's only the topic right now because My Food Security is being used as a blanket justification for subsidizing people's choice to live where it's more expensive to deliver them civic services.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:So progressive Is "I want an inground pool" something that should be subsidized too?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Obviously I don't know you or your exact story but right now you come off to me like the progressive equivalent of some blue collar white working stiff who is angry at people on welfare instead of the boss who just relocated the factory to another country. You...are not right. I'm not angry at people on welfare, though. I just don't think it's a fundamental right to live wherever you want, and that like other luxuries you should pick up the tab for it as the person who benefits. I also don't think we should subsidize inground pools or mortgages or private car ownership or film production.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
No, I don't think health care is comparable to choosing the neighborhood you live in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Suburbs may be even worse, indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Nothing is a fundamental right because rights are political constructs. The point is that we have more than enough resources to help people live in rural communities without it impacting the standard of living enjoyed by us city slickers. Our politicians and corporations are the ones screwing us, not another family of working stiffs who just happen to have the ambition to live next to a lake instead of a skyscraper. But instead of engaging with that reality you're doing the typical crab bucket maneuver of fixating on people from the tribe that you don't like. There may not be logic to it! I lived in semi-rural Ontario when I was growing up, and have many friends and relations who live in small towns or unincorporated areas. I enjoy visiting them, it is nice out there. I do not begrudge them any happiness, and I don't feel threatened by their successes. I think it is perfectly reasonable and moral to want to live in a small town, or to want a large lot for a garden, or a pool. I don't think we should discourage those practices. We do as a society have the money to buy people pools, but for whatever reason I don't think of "having a pool" as being part of the social contract they way "have healthcare" or "avoid starving" are. I also don't think "I would rather live in neighbourhood A than neighbourhood B" is part of the social contract. Maybe I'm merely not ambitious enough, and should be looking much more broadly at quality of life choices that we can help each other with. Decentralized living also has resource and environmental impact that can't be really wiped out by the tax base, unfortunately. Nor can we necessarily spend our way out of doctor shortages. I think the German thing is fine, but I'm ok with regulation of provision of essential things like housing. I think the best part of the article is the rent laws, honestly. We made a big mistake when we stopped seeing a building as housing and started seeing it as an investment you sleep in. I don't mind money being spent on the public service either; there are inefficiencies, but compared to the military or taxing capital gains at a lower rate than income (I mean Jesus), they're no big deal. I'm on the board of a public college, and I spent years working for a non profit. I believe in the commons. I don't think it's right to treat "live in small town" as a special class of preference when it comes to housing, is all. By all means let's agree that we're going to share the costs of each other's housing preferences, with our eyes open; I don't think that's the general agreement among Canadians.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:I put some thought into things and hit upon a way to reverse rural decline and ease the pressure on cities: Why is it a goal to reverse rural decline? Very few of Canada's cities are under population pressure -- maybe 10. There are many cities who would be happy to grow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
peter banana posted:It is, in fact, a right in Canada to live wherever you want. By which you mean "in the province of your choice", per the Charter?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
peter banana posted:That's the wording of section 6, but I think it generally refers to freedom of movement overall as well. I can't find an interpretation to that effect in quick searching or reading the cases referenced from the Wikipedia page at least. Do you have a reference to a case or something?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
How much Vancouver real estate is foreign owned? 20%? 30%?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Then how are people determining its effects? It seems well-established that it's a big problem, but I can't tell how it's known.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
I'm probably going to buy a house in Toronto in the next six months, so I guess I'm part of the problem. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Just when we thought you couldn't type anything dumber in this thread... Oh, with me there's always more and it's always worse. If I can find a rental property that I like then I'd do that, but so far it hasn't been a fruitful search, and I'm somewhat constrained on a few factors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:#YOLO I GUESS LOL Yeah, it's basically "what is the least stupid way I can approach this stupid decision?" It's going to be an expensive and probably wasteful thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Make sure you apply to be on TLCs "Income Property" and new show in the Fall "I can't afford my house" Sorry, by "rental property" I meant "place to rent instead of buy", but I used stupid words. I'm not going to buy anything I can't afford, so that part is OK. But my point is to buy a place to live, not something for which I depend or plan on appreciation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:You should prob move to Montreal or Ottawa then I've lived in both those cities, and they're nice, but for a bunch of reasons -- not least career -- it'll have to be Toronto. A house will probably depreciate while I own it, but so does my car, and in both cases it doesn't matter until I sell it (or go HELOC I guess).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Rime posted:Except the amount you'll stand to lose buying a house in this economic climate would buy a Maserati or nicer, so that's kind of a stupid way to look at it. Sure, but it's the situation I'm in, and I can afford the loss, especially amortized over the time I'll own the house. Would it be nice if houses were cheaper? Certainly. That's not one of the options to hand right now, though. I prefer my car to a Maserati anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
I've owned a house before, and as I said if I can find a place I like that's for rent I'll do that, but so far investigating the rental market has not turned up anything I like. I suspect the places I'm looking at (SFH, good schools, good condition, near transit) aren't going to become unsellable, but no doubt if I want to get rid of a house in 18 months I will take a bath. I can afford the 20%+ down payment and more than afford the resulting mortgage payments and property tax, and I don't need to view it as an investment. If I sell it for $300K less in 7 years, I'll frown, but I won't end up eating ramen in my elder years. If my daughter inherits it, I don't care what the market price would be ever. I'm just bummed that I'll be contributing to the further overheating of the market by playing the bidding war game and whatnot. Unless the market crashes before the summer, of course 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
For 39 straight years.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Man, you're willing to eat 300K? You're much braver than I am. That would cover the cost of a kid going through college and med school in the states, or multiple kids going through undergrad and maybe even grad school in Canada. Because the universe is broken, and sometimes rewards are disproportionate to contribution to society, I have been very fortunate in my career, and can afford to eat $300K without affecting my lifestyle. It's not right, and if I were a more strongly moral person I would probably give away enough money that a $300K loss was unthinkable, but here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Rime posted:Well at least we've established here that nobody gets rich through strong financial sense, and they certainly don't stay there without it either. I'm trying to piss it away through philanthropy before I die. I don't believe in dynastic wealth, my daughter is not inheriting riches.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Well, cheers man. Glad to hear you're successful. If you do decide to give to charity in the future I recommend Against Malaria. I'm more of a "food banks and women's shelters and scholarships" guy, but I'll look into that, thank you!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If you want to punish your daughter after you die, endow a scholarship and then insist that she administer it after you die! It worked for my grandfather! Yeah, it's one of the best experiences I've had. I think she would enjoy it; whenever we walk to the grocery store, she stops to give money to all the panhandlers and charity collectors along the way. I hope it continues. If I want to punish her after I die, I'll make her inheritance contingent on her reading my posts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Newfie posted:Real estate companies coming under police investigation and having their licenses suspended. I expect to see this happening nationally in the future. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/exit-realty-on-the-rock-rnc-investigation-1.3435888 Do you know what the complaint is?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 19:45
|
|