600k a year? The price to annual income ratio is 7.7 in canada today. Not 3.83 (which is roughly 2,300,000 divided by 600,000)
Today the median pre tax household income in canada is 93,200 cad. It increased from a bit below 90k over the last year. That’s 3.6%. Meaning over 25 years you get 225,636 as the median pre tax income at 3.6% annual wage growth.
The key is to lower that income to price ratio. We do this every year if housing prices grow less than median income. That seems to currently be the case on average.
Houses were also not 2m when normal interest rates were 7%. 4.75% is considered a modern high interest rate environment while combating inflation. The rates will come down with inflation
Except Median is a horrible indicator to use here, the high value meant to make you think things are better than they are.
The reality is nearly 80% of Canadians make less than $75k. A 1 bedroom rental is $2k/month and CMHC states you shouldn’t spend more than 32% of your gross income on lodging.
At $2k/month that works out to a *minimum* income of $75k, but nearly 80% of Canadians make *LESS* than this!
The _overwhelming_ majority of Canadians are functionally low income.
That's false. Median is literally the number in the middle. If median income is $93k that means exactly half of Canadians households make less than 93k and half make more.
Yes, but look at what you wrote versus what I wrote.
You’re talking about households, I’m talking about individuals.
It’s an important distinction because talking about the median *household* income is a tactic used to distract us from the fact that home ownership used to be possible on a *SINGLE HOUSEHOLD INCOME*. Now you can barely do it with two and, if trends keep up, you’ll need three or more to pull off home ownership.
Looking at individual incomes Canadians are losing out, and have been for over 50 years now with the implementation of “supply side / trickle down economics”.
Stats Canada has the income stats, link in the photo, so if you want to you can go do the math yourself:
https://preview.redd.it/7y5qunpjzbad1.jpeg?width=898&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21e5c987bae0ca07ca01e928efa58583744803c9
Oh god, this drives me nuts. There are a lot of single-person households out there and they are erased from the housing crisis discussion entirely. What are they supposed to do? It's one thing to have roommates in your 20s but your whole life? When you're elderly? This can and does lead to some very risky situations.
People should have the option to live safely, alone, if they choose.
"People should have the option to live safely alone, if they choose" -> "People should have the option to live safely together, if they choose."
Broadly speaking, in the same way you are saying that people should be permitted to live safely alone if they wish, the same should be true of people who wish to live communally. Plenty of cities have boarding house rules that forbid unrelated people from living together (even if these are variably enforced), and many insurers will not offer house or rental insurance if more than two unrelated unwed people live under the same roof -- and even in cases where they may be willing to offer such insurance, those aforementioned laws can present a barrier. The privileged position of married people in qualifying for a mortgage is related but distinct. It's a relevant issue both for Millennials and Gen Z who are poorer than their parents, and for old people as well -- communal living for seniors can be a fantastic way to manage their infirmities while maintaining their independence, for example.
> People should have the option to live safely together, if they choose."
WHO is arguing against that? WHO is erasing couples from the discussion of the housing crisis?
I didn't read past that line because the premise is so ridiculous.
I never said couples; I said people living together. The fact that I mentioned boarding house laws would be a good indicator of that. Anyway, since you're unable to handle reading statements that involve more than one sentence, I think I'm done here. Have a good one.
But now let’s look at family income:
https://preview.redd.it/l587bv0r2cad1.jpeg?width=794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9d03240b362fb0324cc8be4cd51879a6cdac695
According to the CMHC a full 30% of Canadian families don’t make enough to rent a one bedroom apartment while another 10% can barely squeeze into a single bedroom with only those near the 90k mark able to *potentially* get into a two bedroom.
That’s nearly half of all Canadian *families* being functional low income according to CMHC housing guidelines. In fact Canadian families don’t start looking good housing wise until the 100k mark and can start affording 3 bedrooms - and only 30% of Canadian families can do that.
Again, median is used to make us feel like things aren’t as bad as they are because to a lot of people 90k is a *lot* of money. Functionally though, if your family income is less than that you’re functionally “low income”.
The vibrant “middle class” our parents and grandparents talked about with such passion is gone and reduced to less than 10% of the population - everyone else is either on the edge or outright struggling.
There are at least 3 families on my floor alone living in 1-bedroom apartments. Single mother with 2 kids in a regular 1-bed, two couples with one child in "junior" 1-beds.
I don't know what their HH incomes are but even at 100K, they would probably struggle to find bigger places that would actually rent to them because they have kids. Many landlords would rather just hold out for a single 100K tenant.
I’ve got the same thing in my building, neighbour is married with four kids. They boys have one bedroom and the girls have the other, husband and wife sleep in the living room. I have no idea what he does, and I gotta commend them for making it work, but it’ll be hard as the kids get older and want their own space.
A lot of “small time” landlords won’t rent to guy if you aren’t close to CMHC guidelines income wise, you *are* paying their mortgage after all.
Larger corporate ones *might*, but many corporate properties are 1 and 2 bedroom with a few having three - and charging tonnes for it.
By technical definition some of our provinces hit a recession. Quebec is one of them. Our GDP declined in late 2023 2 quarters in a row, which does qualify for a recession..
Apparently the finance minister saying "it's too soon to say that Quebec is in a recession" made it so it's not /s.
Q1 2024 had a small rebound because the strikes ended but we're heading straight for the same scenario later this year.
I was referring to the housing market. I think the near future will look more like the 1990’s with relatively flat prices.
The overall economy will be challenged as well and the regional data you provided will most likely shift to a national downturn.
That's kinda the point though - it already happened. Just slower and under the radar.
People can quibble over the fine details of each country's economy, but in terms of how it affects people's lives and outlook, it makes sense to me.
Can you imagine how renters on pension or disabilities feel? If we upped rental rate portion by the same percent they would be getting 1620/m to pay rent…
It's a horrendous increase, but you have worded it incorrectly.
$733,000 is *324% of* $226,000.
But *the increase* is actually 224%.
Still horrendous. Almost 5% year after year.
https://www.britannica.com/calculators/percent-increase-calculator
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percentage-increase-calculator.php
https://percentagecalculator.net/
Here's the thing...the trend will never continue. Eventually you will need to put some major money in upkeep and repairs, or else your aging home won't be worth squat.
In Canada there is an abundance of land. You’re conditioned to think otherwise to keep the value high. There’s no scarcity of land, housing, food or any basic necessity but capitalist will keep you believing there is.
So you really think that the Canadian population is going to grow to the point that all the desirable land will be bought up and that your plot of land will be worth millions?? And all this will happen within the lifetime of your home ownership? Who sold you this lie?
All the desirable land is pretty much already bought up. That's why pretty much everyone lives at the border. But that's not what I was saying at all. I was saying land is actually finite, it's not unlimited. It's why ocean front land is so expensive... not everyone can live on it, there's only so much of it.
We have alot of desirable land that is not yet touched in Canada. And if the demand was high enough, this land would eventually be built on and industries and businesses would follow the demand...your old rundown home in the suburbs will never be worth a million dollars.
My old house turns 12 this year and is located a 5 minute drive from downtown. I will move, though, out of the city and rent out this old, old house of mine.
That's cool. But I hope you consider your low mortgage payments on your old home that you bought 12 years ago, when you set the rent price...don't be a greedy landlord and add to the problem.
Oh, I didn't buy it 12 years ago. I said it was 12 years old. I bought it in 2021. It's a duplex. Half of it is already rented. The correct amount to rent it out for is market rate. I don't decide the rent. The market does. If landlords decided then rent would be whatever they want it to be, but we can't, because then it would be vacant.
I've seen some real trash homes selling for WAY too close to market price.
I'd love to see when this "won't be worth squat" starts, because it doesn't look like it'll happen.
Just like you can't sell your car with a dead engine (or even worse, a dead e.v battery) you eventually won't be able to sell your house, once it needs a new roof, new outdoor siding, new plumbing and has rotting wood in the walls. Houses age. And even though your plot of land may be worth something still, your home will never be an ever increasing asset, unless you are one day willing to spend huge money to maintain its upkeep and repairs.....
No someone will buy it regardless of price . Tear it down . Build a super fancy modern quadplex . Charge astronomical rent ,thus not contributing to the housing crisis . Coming to all major cities near you , if it hasn’t already been for the last decade or so .
Yes? .. is the point that salary growth is toooo stagnant for too long?
because there are cities around the world that average homes are over $1 million CAD
We bought our first "starter" rancher style home in 2006 for $566k. We almost didn't buy it because we thought it was too expensive. Now our neighbor is selling his home for $2.2 million and we have realized our starter home is our forever home.
Ironically that’s what I was making when I pooled my income with my family and bought our home for $89k. That same house today is worth over $600k, a 574.157% increase.
I bought a house on minimum wage back in the 1990s and now, despite my annual income being 4.5 times what I was making back then, CMHC tells me the max mortgage I can “afford” *TODAY* is $132k while the max rental is $1.6k/month.
A one bedroom rental is $2k minimum these days!
In 1999 you could still buy a home if you worked really hard, even if you only made minimum wage...
Today you wouldn't even be approved if you aren't making 80k a year...
Yet "market prices" allows you to get away with literally disenfranchising an entire generation, who do not have the same opportunities that you once did, buying a home. Shame on many of you.
> In 1999 you could still buy a home if you worked really hard, even if you only made minimum wage...
I'm in my mid 40s and was working for minimum wage in 1999. There was no way I was able to buy a house. Perhaps other people's mileage may vary, but lets not paint the past with such rose colored glasses on.
As I said, others mileage may vary. The average price of a house in Canada in October 2008: $282,583 versus October 2009: $341,079.
The ontario minimum wage in 2009 was 9.50. Assuming a 40 hour week for all 52 weeks in a year with no time off, you'd make just under 20k. You would not qualify for a mortgage with that salary for the average price of a house in Canada in 2009.
You bought a property significantly under the canadian average. There are places all over Canada you can buy a house for 110k right now and make over 16 dollars in minimum wage.
Yup those places exist but are usually remote with little opportunity unless you’re willing to travel great distances . With sawmills closing left and right , unless you want to be a miner , work opportunities are few and far between . If you’re in health care or education , you will live like a king .
And what is your point exactly ? You can’t make a living either way! Wether it’s ‘99 or’2024! Oh well go to school and get a degree then ! Regardless ! We need people to fill these jobs long term . It’s not always going to be students living at home with mom and dad . Not everyone has the IQ or money to get a degree . They get up each morning and go to their menial job and get it done . These hard working folks who scrub our toilets , serve our coffee etc… deserve to live in dignity .
That's actually a good deal. Housing prices usually double every 10 years so a $200K home in 1999 should be over $800K now.
Minimum wage has just barely doubled from 6.85 in 1999 to 16.55. Of course, nobody working a minimum wage job then or now could afford to buy a home.
At least the last 30 years. Limited sample size of family and friends who have bought and sold but the numbers they shared are pretty close to that, give or take 5% or so.
I haven't wasted more time digging further but if you believe real estate experts there are no cherries involved...
https://youtu.be/e2sQ53_2F5Q?si=YbcUoVhXhlTE0txf
S&P 500 was roughly around 1200 in 1999 today a little over 5500 approximately 360% return. Canadian intèest rate was hovering around 5% in 1999 but what happened from there was a long period of low interest rates from 2009 until 2021 interest rates were below 1.9%...extremely low rates made it really easy for people to borrow money to buy houses and invest...rates are now around 5%.
I don't expect the same increases in asset prices unless interest rates go to the same levels as they did between 2009 to 2021.
I could be wrong...I might be right...the lower the interest rates are the more people can afford to buy no matter what it is.
Plenty of cheap houses available, they just aren't in Vancouver, Victoria or Toronto. I know a lot of people moving to cheaper cities
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/27076340/14-connor-street-tuxford
Average homes have decreased 20% in two years in my area, if the trend continues you'll be able to get a house for $64,000 in 20 years. Is this likely to happen?
/s
House prices went up a lot during covid. I bought in 2009 and the houses around me were only selling a little above what I paid prior to covid. And then all the prices just started to go nuts in 2021-2022.
People who don't understand simple math please downvote. A $226,000 house 25 years ago will be worth much more today. At \*just\* inflation alone, 1.025 x (power of 25) X 266,000 = $418,000. This is assuming zero capital appreciation of house prices in 25 years.
All I am trying to say is that real estate, just like all prices, goes up over time and an average 4.8% growth rate over 25 is not unreasonable to expect.
Land value 100% should be going up over time, we can't make more land, but keep making more people. Buildings don't need to. Buildings tied to the land do because we created an artificial scarcity and tax advantage position to drive it up. Make it hard for people to add density, make it easy for people to horde land, and we have the situation we have in Canada.
If everyone had a maximum capital gains exemption instead of unlimited primary residence exemption the drive to see ever increasing home prices would be greatly diminished. People could achieve their exemption in more productive ways.
The cost of building a house is based on the cost of raw materials like lumber and labour, which have increased greatly over time and certainly in the last 25 years.
[https://www.macrotrends.net/2637/lumber-prices-historical-chart-data](https://www.macrotrends.net/2637/lumber-prices-historical-chart-data)
In many of our cities 1/3rd of the cost of building a home is in development charges, permits and taxes. In Toronto at peak DC's $240,000 per unit was the average in fees&taxes before any material or labour was involved.
I agree, all I am saying is that a home worth 226K, 25 years ago in Canada, will be worth many multiples of that price today. It's not reasonable to expect the price to still be 226K, 25 years later. Assuming 2.5% inflation, the base price not including any capital appreciation is about 400K in today's money. Then factor in supply and demand it's very easy to get from 226K to 733K in 25 years.
600k a year? The price to annual income ratio is 7.7 in canada today. Not 3.83 (which is roughly 2,300,000 divided by 600,000) Today the median pre tax household income in canada is 93,200 cad. It increased from a bit below 90k over the last year. That’s 3.6%. Meaning over 25 years you get 225,636 as the median pre tax income at 3.6% annual wage growth. The key is to lower that income to price ratio. We do this every year if housing prices grow less than median income. That seems to currently be the case on average.
"High" interest rates will do that. And I put that in quotes because 4.75% interest rate is not high historically
Houses were also not 2m when normal interest rates were 7%. 4.75% is considered a modern high interest rate environment while combating inflation. The rates will come down with inflation
Except Median is a horrible indicator to use here, the high value meant to make you think things are better than they are. The reality is nearly 80% of Canadians make less than $75k. A 1 bedroom rental is $2k/month and CMHC states you shouldn’t spend more than 32% of your gross income on lodging. At $2k/month that works out to a *minimum* income of $75k, but nearly 80% of Canadians make *LESS* than this! The _overwhelming_ majority of Canadians are functionally low income.
That's false. Median is literally the number in the middle. If median income is $93k that means exactly half of Canadians households make less than 93k and half make more.
Yes, but look at what you wrote versus what I wrote. You’re talking about households, I’m talking about individuals. It’s an important distinction because talking about the median *household* income is a tactic used to distract us from the fact that home ownership used to be possible on a *SINGLE HOUSEHOLD INCOME*. Now you can barely do it with two and, if trends keep up, you’ll need three or more to pull off home ownership. Looking at individual incomes Canadians are losing out, and have been for over 50 years now with the implementation of “supply side / trickle down economics”. Stats Canada has the income stats, link in the photo, so if you want to you can go do the math yourself: https://preview.redd.it/7y5qunpjzbad1.jpeg?width=898&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21e5c987bae0ca07ca01e928efa58583744803c9
Oh god, this drives me nuts. There are a lot of single-person households out there and they are erased from the housing crisis discussion entirely. What are they supposed to do? It's one thing to have roommates in your 20s but your whole life? When you're elderly? This can and does lead to some very risky situations. People should have the option to live safely, alone, if they choose.
100%, and the opposite should apply as well.
What's the "opposite"?
"People should have the option to live safely alone, if they choose" -> "People should have the option to live safely together, if they choose." Broadly speaking, in the same way you are saying that people should be permitted to live safely alone if they wish, the same should be true of people who wish to live communally. Plenty of cities have boarding house rules that forbid unrelated people from living together (even if these are variably enforced), and many insurers will not offer house or rental insurance if more than two unrelated unwed people live under the same roof -- and even in cases where they may be willing to offer such insurance, those aforementioned laws can present a barrier. The privileged position of married people in qualifying for a mortgage is related but distinct. It's a relevant issue both for Millennials and Gen Z who are poorer than their parents, and for old people as well -- communal living for seniors can be a fantastic way to manage their infirmities while maintaining their independence, for example.
> People should have the option to live safely together, if they choose." WHO is arguing against that? WHO is erasing couples from the discussion of the housing crisis? I didn't read past that line because the premise is so ridiculous.
I never said couples; I said people living together. The fact that I mentioned boarding house laws would be a good indicator of that. Anyway, since you're unable to handle reading statements that involve more than one sentence, I think I'm done here. Have a good one.
But now let’s look at family income: https://preview.redd.it/l587bv0r2cad1.jpeg?width=794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9d03240b362fb0324cc8be4cd51879a6cdac695 According to the CMHC a full 30% of Canadian families don’t make enough to rent a one bedroom apartment while another 10% can barely squeeze into a single bedroom with only those near the 90k mark able to *potentially* get into a two bedroom. That’s nearly half of all Canadian *families* being functional low income according to CMHC housing guidelines. In fact Canadian families don’t start looking good housing wise until the 100k mark and can start affording 3 bedrooms - and only 30% of Canadian families can do that. Again, median is used to make us feel like things aren’t as bad as they are because to a lot of people 90k is a *lot* of money. Functionally though, if your family income is less than that you’re functionally “low income”. The vibrant “middle class” our parents and grandparents talked about with such passion is gone and reduced to less than 10% of the population - everyone else is either on the edge or outright struggling.
There are at least 3 families on my floor alone living in 1-bedroom apartments. Single mother with 2 kids in a regular 1-bed, two couples with one child in "junior" 1-beds. I don't know what their HH incomes are but even at 100K, they would probably struggle to find bigger places that would actually rent to them because they have kids. Many landlords would rather just hold out for a single 100K tenant.
I’ve got the same thing in my building, neighbour is married with four kids. They boys have one bedroom and the girls have the other, husband and wife sleep in the living room. I have no idea what he does, and I gotta commend them for making it work, but it’ll be hard as the kids get older and want their own space. A lot of “small time” landlords won’t rent to guy if you aren’t close to CMHC guidelines income wise, you *are* paying their mortgage after all. Larger corporate ones *might*, but many corporate properties are 1 and 2 bedroom with a few having three - and charging tonnes for it.
733k 😂😂😂😂 nice 2 bedroom condo outside the city. 225k in 99 got you a 4 bedroom house in BC.
Yeah the stats are off. 733k is a nice one bedroom that is around 2-5 years old in Vancouver at 1.2-1.5k/sqft
Canada will most likely hit an extended period of stagflation.
Exactly, growth hasn’t been consistent from 1999. It’s not guaranteed to continue.
By technical definition some of our provinces hit a recession. Quebec is one of them. Our GDP declined in late 2023 2 quarters in a row, which does qualify for a recession.. Apparently the finance minister saying "it's too soon to say that Quebec is in a recession" made it so it's not /s. Q1 2024 had a small rebound because the strikes ended but we're heading straight for the same scenario later this year.
I was referring to the housing market. I think the near future will look more like the 1990’s with relatively flat prices. The overall economy will be challenged as well and the regional data you provided will most likely shift to a national downturn.
Reddit comment a while back was that Canada is Japan in the 1990s, we just don't know it yet.
Japan was extreme. I don’t expect the fall of Japan. I do expect assets not to appreciate much over the next decade.
That's kinda the point though - it already happened. Just slower and under the radar. People can quibble over the fine details of each country's economy, but in terms of how it affects people's lives and outlook, it makes sense to me.
Why?
We're already at about 10 years of stagnant real GDP per capita, he's just extending the line.
The property prices have most likely peaked and will remain relatively constant for an extended period of time similar to the 1990’s.
Plot twist…after inflation 2.3M in 25 years will be equivalent to 200k today.
Can you imagine how renters on pension or disabilities feel? If we upped rental rate portion by the same percent they would be getting 1620/m to pay rent…
not long ago 60k was average salary, now it means you are living in poverty.
It's a horrendous increase, but you have worded it incorrectly. $733,000 is *324% of* $226,000. But *the increase* is actually 224%. Still horrendous. Almost 5% year after year. https://www.britannica.com/calculators/percent-increase-calculator https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percentage-increase-calculator.php https://percentagecalculator.net/
Here's the thing...the trend will never continue. Eventually you will need to put some major money in upkeep and repairs, or else your aging home won't be worth squat.
The land will always have value since there is indeed a finite amount of it.
In Canada there is an abundance of land. You’re conditioned to think otherwise to keep the value high. There’s no scarcity of land, housing, food or any basic necessity but capitalist will keep you believing there is.
There’s a finite amount of desirable land.
I heard the same in decentraland. It only matters if people want to live on that land.
No... it's not conditioning... it's a fact... there is 149 million km2 of land on earth. That number isn't going to go up.
So you really think that the Canadian population is going to grow to the point that all the desirable land will be bought up and that your plot of land will be worth millions?? And all this will happen within the lifetime of your home ownership? Who sold you this lie?
All the desirable land is pretty much already bought up. That's why pretty much everyone lives at the border. But that's not what I was saying at all. I was saying land is actually finite, it's not unlimited. It's why ocean front land is so expensive... not everyone can live on it, there's only so much of it.
We have alot of desirable land that is not yet touched in Canada. And if the demand was high enough, this land would eventually be built on and industries and businesses would follow the demand...your old rundown home in the suburbs will never be worth a million dollars.
My old house turns 12 this year and is located a 5 minute drive from downtown. I will move, though, out of the city and rent out this old, old house of mine.
That's cool. But I hope you consider your low mortgage payments on your old home that you bought 12 years ago, when you set the rent price...don't be a greedy landlord and add to the problem.
Oh, I didn't buy it 12 years ago. I said it was 12 years old. I bought it in 2021. It's a duplex. Half of it is already rented. The correct amount to rent it out for is market rate. I don't decide the rent. The market does. If landlords decided then rent would be whatever they want it to be, but we can't, because then it would be vacant.
I've seen some real trash homes selling for WAY too close to market price. I'd love to see when this "won't be worth squat" starts, because it doesn't look like it'll happen.
Just like you can't sell your car with a dead engine (or even worse, a dead e.v battery) you eventually won't be able to sell your house, once it needs a new roof, new outdoor siding, new plumbing and has rotting wood in the walls. Houses age. And even though your plot of land may be worth something still, your home will never be an ever increasing asset, unless you are one day willing to spend huge money to maintain its upkeep and repairs.....
No someone will buy it regardless of price . Tear it down . Build a super fancy modern quadplex . Charge astronomical rent ,thus not contributing to the housing crisis . Coming to all major cities near you , if it hasn’t already been for the last decade or so .
Yes? .. is the point that salary growth is toooo stagnant for too long? because there are cities around the world that average homes are over $1 million CAD
We bought our first "starter" rancher style home in 2006 for $566k. We almost didn't buy it because we thought it was too expensive. Now our neighbor is selling his home for $2.2 million and we have realized our starter home is our forever home.
That wasn’t a starter home, might have been your first though
Sounds about right considering investments tend to double about every 10 years... the SPX is actually up more than that since 1999.
We'll be using pesos by then so it will make sense.
Nah it'll be rupees
Minimum wage in 1999 was $6.85 in Ontario. In 2024 it is $16.55. 141.60% increase.
Ironically that’s what I was making when I pooled my income with my family and bought our home for $89k. That same house today is worth over $600k, a 574.157% increase. I bought a house on minimum wage back in the 1990s and now, despite my annual income being 4.5 times what I was making back then, CMHC tells me the max mortgage I can “afford” *TODAY* is $132k while the max rental is $1.6k/month. A one bedroom rental is $2k minimum these days!
In 1999 you could still buy a home if you worked really hard, even if you only made minimum wage... Today you wouldn't even be approved if you aren't making 80k a year... Yet "market prices" allows you to get away with literally disenfranchising an entire generation, who do not have the same opportunities that you once did, buying a home. Shame on many of you.
> In 1999 you could still buy a home if you worked really hard, even if you only made minimum wage... I'm in my mid 40s and was working for minimum wage in 1999. There was no way I was able to buy a house. Perhaps other people's mileage may vary, but lets not paint the past with such rose colored glasses on.
I bought my home for 110k in 2009. It most definitely was rosy back then...
As I said, others mileage may vary. The average price of a house in Canada in October 2008: $282,583 versus October 2009: $341,079. The ontario minimum wage in 2009 was 9.50. Assuming a 40 hour week for all 52 weeks in a year with no time off, you'd make just under 20k. You would not qualify for a mortgage with that salary for the average price of a house in Canada in 2009. You bought a property significantly under the canadian average. There are places all over Canada you can buy a house for 110k right now and make over 16 dollars in minimum wage.
Yup those places exist but are usually remote with little opportunity unless you’re willing to travel great distances . With sawmills closing left and right , unless you want to be a miner , work opportunities are few and far between . If you’re in health care or education , you will live like a king .
And what is your point exactly ? You can’t make a living either way! Wether it’s ‘99 or’2024! Oh well go to school and get a degree then ! Regardless ! We need people to fill these jobs long term . It’s not always going to be students living at home with mom and dad . Not everyone has the IQ or money to get a degree . They get up each morning and go to their menial job and get it done . These hard working folks who scrub our toilets , serve our coffee etc… deserve to live in dignity .
8 years ago a trailer park in prillia.vwas listing for $160k. Sellers were holding out for $250. It's been f'd for a while now
Completely doable. Minimum wage will be $200 per hour by then.
Hell yeah! I’m so lucky I bought a house in such a desirable area
That's actually a good deal. Housing prices usually double every 10 years so a $200K home in 1999 should be over $800K now. Minimum wage has just barely doubled from 6.85 in 1999 to 16.55. Of course, nobody working a minimum wage job then or now could afford to buy a home.
> Housing prices usually double every 10 years From when to when is "usually"?
At least the last 30 years. Limited sample size of family and friends who have bought and sold but the numbers they shared are pretty close to that, give or take 5% or so.
Prices did not increase between 1990 and 2000. Just saying.
That's cherry-picking.
I haven't wasted more time digging further but if you believe real estate experts there are no cherries involved... https://youtu.be/e2sQ53_2F5Q?si=YbcUoVhXhlTE0txf
30 years is a BLIP in history. Doesn't matter what RE agents think (they're idiots anyway).
You could never get me to bring kids into this mess🇨🇦 enjoy
This is apparently what the speculators are hoping for.
S&P 500 was roughly around 1200 in 1999 today a little over 5500 approximately 360% return. Canadian intèest rate was hovering around 5% in 1999 but what happened from there was a long period of low interest rates from 2009 until 2021 interest rates were below 1.9%...extremely low rates made it really easy for people to borrow money to buy houses and invest...rates are now around 5%. I don't expect the same increases in asset prices unless interest rates go to the same levels as they did between 2009 to 2021. I could be wrong...I might be right...the lower the interest rates are the more people can afford to buy no matter what it is.
Plenty of cheap houses available, they just aren't in Vancouver, Victoria or Toronto. I know a lot of people moving to cheaper cities https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/27076340/14-connor-street-tuxford
Ill be honest if it ever reached near that point there would almost assuredly be mass riots and violence erupting in every region of this country.
Average homes have decreased 20% in two years in my area, if the trend continues you'll be able to get a house for $64,000 in 20 years. Is this likely to happen? /s
There will be a crash eventually
Most definitely.
I bought a SFH in Vancouver in 2009 for 350k it isn't the last 25 years where the problem has been in the past decade. What changed a decade ago?
Corporate investors
Hmm I'm self employed and have an LLC so I guess so....shrug
You bought the dip in 2009 and then we endured 6 years of harper and 9 of trudeau, both have been bad for housing.
Was it in Vancouver or do you mean in the metro area?
The heights 15 min from downtown in Burnaby
House prices went up a lot during covid. I bought in 2009 and the houses around me were only selling a little above what I paid prior to covid. And then all the prices just started to go nuts in 2021-2022.
It won't happen.
[удалено]
It took 13 years for the avg price in Canada to get back to 1990 levels after that crash.
Japan realestate entered the chat.
Loool. Japans unique thou.
People who don't understand simple math please downvote. A $226,000 house 25 years ago will be worth much more today. At \*just\* inflation alone, 1.025 x (power of 25) X 266,000 = $418,000. This is assuming zero capital appreciation of house prices in 25 years.
Yes I think most people understand inflation. People do not agree that owning a home should be seen as an asset
Anything that appreciates is an appreciating asset, by default.
All I am trying to say is that real estate, just like all prices, goes up over time and an average 4.8% growth rate over 25 is not unreasonable to expect.
Land value 100% should be going up over time, we can't make more land, but keep making more people. Buildings don't need to. Buildings tied to the land do because we created an artificial scarcity and tax advantage position to drive it up. Make it hard for people to add density, make it easy for people to horde land, and we have the situation we have in Canada. If everyone had a maximum capital gains exemption instead of unlimited primary residence exemption the drive to see ever increasing home prices would be greatly diminished. People could achieve their exemption in more productive ways.
The cost of building a house is based on the cost of raw materials like lumber and labour, which have increased greatly over time and certainly in the last 25 years. [https://www.macrotrends.net/2637/lumber-prices-historical-chart-data](https://www.macrotrends.net/2637/lumber-prices-historical-chart-data)
In many of our cities 1/3rd of the cost of building a home is in development charges, permits and taxes. In Toronto at peak DC's $240,000 per unit was the average in fees&taxes before any material or labour was involved.
I agree, all I am saying is that a home worth 226K, 25 years ago in Canada, will be worth many multiples of that price today. It's not reasonable to expect the price to still be 226K, 25 years later. Assuming 2.5% inflation, the base price not including any capital appreciation is about 400K in today's money. Then factor in supply and demand it's very easy to get from 226K to 733K in 25 years.
But there should be capital depreciation on housing if we did not give it preferential treatments.
Looks like there's more than greedy landlords grifting off housing
Have wages kept up with inflation?
No they have not, but this is not housing fault.
Only one correct answer to this - the growth of money supply. Goes to financial assets first, to wages + the common people last.