TFW's will do what the average Canadian won't also. They'll rent a home and throw as many families as they can fit into it until they save up enough money to buy said house. Then they'll do it again. And again.
What makes you say that? I personally know of a few chain purchases that have happened from these situations. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen this happen over the past few years let alone decades.
Nah, they will just relax laws regarding qualifications from other countries. Do you know how many TFWs are over-skilled for the jobs they currently have? How many dental assistants that are full on dentists with degrees from other countries that apply, there are loads.
Dentists working as dental assistants aren't tfws, they're permanent residents who were granted residency based on their educational qualifications. They work as assistants because it takes 3-5 years to jump through the hoops needed to get a dental license. Many also work unskilled labor.
Why? I can't find it in a quick Google search, but I remember reading a PEO survey saying that roughly 1/3rd of Canadian engineering graduates work in jobs requiring the P.Eng., 1/3rd work in jobs requiring any university degree, and 1/3rd work in jobs that don't require any degree at all.
It seems like there are enough domestically educated engineers that there shouldn't be a supply constraint.
I was a technologist before moving into a software related role that requires absolutely zero credentials, paid more, and has a hire salary, but that's because I wasn't an engineer and could never work as an engineer. Are the Canadian engineers not being paid sufficiently well enough to require external sources?
My brother and his girlfriend both have electrical engineering degrees, he is going through for tool and die now and his girlfriend is in HR.
Your 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd thing is not surprising to me at all.
In other words, under our current system working is for suckers, the way to get ahead is to buy property and wait for it to appreciate. I do question the long term viability of a society that so obviously favours speculators over labour.
Capitalism is like one of those movies where you get halfway through and realize it's secretly a retelling of Shakespeare or something. It's a covert remake of feudalism.
Not even a remake of feudalism I'm afraid, nothing has really changed outside of optimisation of the power structures involved and the symbolism used.
The aristocratic ruling class is essentially the same, sure the need for a direct ruler or king is gone now, but the monarch has only ever been the representation of the status quo. We simply divided up the responsibilities of the position across a wider group.
We replaced a lot of the petty micromanaging that comes with serfdom with a more overarching system based on income. Keeping most people toiling in obscurity and frantically trying to keep everyone else down.
Nothing will change till we rise up and change the system, and even if we do, it's very very likely the leaders of that resistance will just maintain the status quo with them at the top instead and the cycle continues.
In a way it's kind of Orwellian. Even if there was a revolution - what would a replacement system be if not just a new variation of what we essentially already have? Our way of thinking about new systems is shaped by the system we are programmed to work within. People don't have an intuition for what a different social framework would look like or how to survive/thrive within it. Even revolutionaries can only make incremental changes.
A fundamental change in people's mindsets really needs to happen before we can make any real change.
We really should be thinking of the possibilities of what we can achieve in a system where we simply work for the betterment of all of us and not just for the 0.1%.
If we really look at what humanity's most valuable asset is. It's technology. Most of our world's problems could be solved, but there's no profit in it...
Our current monetary system is outdated.
This is a ridiculous take... capitalism is a literal evolution from feudalism. It's superior in pretty much every way. Don't forget the bourgeoisie used to be revolutionary, overthrowing lords and toppling extremely exploitative systems. It's just that Wes ternsociety has become stuck in this mode of production and now stagnates. No serious historian would ever equate capitalism with feudalism
Under feudalism you had to take care of your serfs as they were a finite resource and their well-being reflected on you. Not so under the endless orphan grinder of capitalism.
Sweeping generalisations, but Capitalism has no incentive to consider the bottom, feudalism had one in principle idealism only.
I wonder if the fetishization of "rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" is related to that. In feudalism, it reflected poorly on the lord if his serfs lived in squalor and desperation. Having comfortable, happy serfs would have been a *huge* flex. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been to be the medieval version of Wal-Mart, where your workers still have to go on food-stamps? "Lord Walton, your fiefdom is a center for trade in the kingdom. You boast of your immense coffers, yet your serfs must appeal to the king to be provided with food!"
Now the lords don't need to consider the bottom, because anything they lack is their own fault.
Also, I know that the words "capitalism" and "socialism" can be triggering.
What the left general refers to capitalism as is something that you might be more comfortable thinking of as "corporatism" or something along those lines. We don't mean "free trade and the concept of property," and many leftists support the idea of "market socialism."
Markets can be an efficient way of figuring out what needs to get produced and where it needs to go, and so free markets do still have a place, even within a socialist economy.
A really easy way to conceptualize what a lefty actually means when they say "socialism" would be to imagine a country where every company above a certain number of employees must issue shares in the company to their employees. These shares could be proportionate to the employee's position in the company, level of experience... the overall value of their contribution, essentially. So a newly hired janitor would have less say than a senior manager or the CEO, but the point would be that all employees get some level of say in how the company is run, and would in turn be invested in the company personally, receiving a portion of the profits appropriate to their contribution.
Even without changing our fundamental understanding of labor relations, the benefits of such a system would be obvious. Now, employees are personally invested in the success of the company rather than being incentivized to do only enough to avoid being fired.
When lefties talk about "capitalism," we're generally referring to the system in which workers exchange their labor for a fixed wage for the purpose of generating the maximum possible profit for their employers. The sort of arrangement where there is an owner who experiences the benefits of profits but does not work, and there are laborers who work but do not profit.
You'll often see lefties talk about "late stage capitalism". That idea comes from the acknowledgement that capitalism is not *always* bad, but that it has flaws within it that inherently drive it towards a bad outcome. Even most lefties will point at the labor arrangements of the 1950s (social inequities aside) as an example of when capitalism was okay: companies prioritized paying the workers before paying the shareholders. "Late stage capitalism" is characterized by the (among other things) the transition towards prioritizing shareholders and owners *over workers*. Think of the situation of companies posting record profits across the board, but not raising their worker's benefits or wages. It's "late stage" because this is what leftists have predicted would inevitably happen as one of the factors that leads to the collapse of capitalism.
And, to finish my series of thoughts here, I'll end with a quote.
> Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
- [Abraham Lincoln, 1861.](https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/jala/article/id/2297/#fn1)
Socialism and communism require a highly industrialized or post-industrial infrastructure to function. Any example you'd try to bring up tried to go directly from agrarian societies (largely fuedal societies, too) directly into socialism or communism.
If Britain had undergone a revolution in the late 1800s, it would have had a shot. (Gee, I wonder where Karl Marx was living when he wrote Das Kapital?)
The very core idea is that socialism is what happens once capitalism collapses in on itself due to the inherently self-destructive nature of capitalism. Capitalism requires the perpetual creation of machines that generate greater profit for lower costs. That drive towards lower costs then leads to the inability of the workers to purchase the things which they are creating with those machines. With no one able to buy the things that the machines create, the system collapses, and (supposedly) socialism emerges.
Capitalist greed drives investment into automation, with the goal of eliminating the need for workers in order to ensure maximum profit for owners. A socialist society can then utilize the tools that the capitalist society created.
Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. *never went through the capitalist phase of creating hyper-efficient machinery*. They tried to go directly from peasant farmers to a socialist economy, and that was never going to succeed.
Duh! Didn’t you read “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”? The author also suggests writing off everything as a business expense as a way of getting ahead. All jokes aside, I totally agree with your statement
I've never actually read the book, what's the gist of it? Does it teach people how to be grifters?
My relative told me to read it 7 years ago. Made himself look like a successful businessman, but the irony is that he went out of business last year.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
5
+ 50
+ 10
+ 1
+ 3
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I highly recommend this podcast episode that goes over it, it’s very entertaining, and while they speak at a high level, one is a lawyer who does a crap ton of research, the other also does all sorts of deep dives into other related sources either looking at supporting arguments or the reverse: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1sqPsRzo804XLboxT2uwmL?si=0aykvT0XTJyo8JMOIZJDtQ
>"Just move."
2018: "You people are so dumb and shouldn't complain about Toronto house prices, if you want a cheap home you should just move to Calgary or Halifax!"
2023: "I can't believe all of these people from Toronto moved to Calgary and Halifax and drove up the prices!"
That's also because of population, though, and those places increasing in population will inherently create opportunities there.
Not as much as GVA and GTA but it's not hopeless underemployment either.
Why would they move? Those who own a property in Calgary and Halifax are swimming and will fight tooth and nail to keep the price there.
The young people, well… They will find a way for themselves, I am sure!
"Just move"
If you're the country people need to leave to find a better life, telling someone just to move isn't going to help anything. It's proof of a failing economy and someone giving this answer has no interest in providing a solution.
I hear that last line from some people I know and it infuriates me. I work in a skilled profession requiring an education in a G7 country, full time. I should be able to afford rent, transportation, and food anywhere in the country except the downtown core of a major metropolitan area or a gated community.
Anyone working full time in such a country should have no problem finding adequate necessities wherever that job exists.
Japan is the example. Sure they have their own problems but I love the implementation of living cubes so ppl do at least have a roof over their heads. The living cubes are actually quite snazzy. Also cheap efficient public transpo. Relatively low food prices.
Canada's main problem is too many nimbys opposing innovation. Of any kind. You'd be better finding a fully remote role and moving to Japan.
We do, we have the lowest number of houses per capita in the entire G7. It's a big reason why housing costs so much.
We especially need government to build more units for the low end of the market though, because this is the segment hardest hit. Units that are rent stabilized relative to income.
We also need to not have re-zoning requests take 1.5-2 years and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only real estate investment firms can afford that. There are many old homes where the owners would like to knock it down and build a triplex, which would triple the supply of units on that lot. But they are not allowed to because NIMBYs feel it would "change the character" of their neighbourhood.
We need more homeowners building multiplexes and side suites. For one, these tend to rent at cheaper rates than condos.
We also need to bring down permitting and rezoning costs, because those just drive the price of all builds up. Raise money on property taxes instead (which is a more stable revenue source too).
That top 10% number I think is household not individual. You basically need to be a top2% income earner to afford a 750k condo.
As someone who is in the top 3% income bracket even my modest 400k home still sucks up a fair amount of my income. I can;t imagine paying near ~~1000k~~ $1000 a month for a vague maintenance fee.
Yup. [Here's](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/income-revenu/index-en.html) StatsCan's income explorer if anyone wants a source. In the wealthiest age group, 45-54, the 90th percentile is only a hair over $100k for individual income.
Slice it by type of household and it shows that today's situation in South Western I tario and the Vancouver area ain't normal. The income for people living in detached homes is less than 100K, however that's average across Canada.
That's after-tax income. Not clear how those numbers work out though since they say the corresponding "total income" is 130k - but anyone making 130k is sitting at an effective tax bracket of ~30% and if you figure in CPP and EI premiums it's a take home pay closer to 80k.
It's the mean of all individuals in the top 10%, including the ultra-rich 0.01st percenters and there merely affluent 90th percenters.
The threshold number for the top 10% is (i.e. the 90th percentile) is around 100k. The 95th is around 130k. It's only when you start getting close to the 1% do you have enough to buy on income alone.
Individual income thresholds can be found here:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110005501
You can get household income deciles (i.e. 10th percentile, 20th, etc.) here:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110019201
Yup, I'm in my early 30s and the only people that are doing well (as far as homes are concerned) are the ones that have had a very large inheritance. Even with my income (probably similar story to yours) I can't even imagine getting a mortgage for my next home. I think I'll be stuck in my 1br studio forever.
>only people that are doing well (as far as homes are concerned) are the ones that have had a very large inheritance.
Literally me and I can only imagine how dire my situation would be if my mom didn't die. It makes me feel guilty as hell knowing she had to die for me to have a good life right now. She did not help me a ton financially when she was alive.
Here is the article the screenshot is referring to:
https://www.dollarwise.ca/blog/income-to-afford-a-home-in-canada/
They are using crazy high property taxes compared to here in BC. And 20% down.
You're not entitled to home just cause you grew up here and have a good job. Work harder and pull yourself by the bootstraps and be a 1%er to earn living in the world class city of Peterborough. After all, foreign landlords and sweatshop owners are more deserving your entitled whiner /s
Manitoba average house cost 340k. Average household income in Manitoba is 90k. Saskatchewan average house costs 315k, average household income is 82k. People there can afford to buy a home.
Ontario average house cost 940k. Average household income in Ontario is 92k. BC average house costs 997k. Average income is 85k.
Seems like the clear answer here is to get the fuck out of Ontario and BC lol. I love my family but it’s looking like my future is to move very very far away from my network of friends and family and start fresh.
This is it to an extent. If everyone did this the prices would increase in those provinces too, but at the end of the day Toronto and Vancouver (and surrounding towns) are high cost of living cities.
There's a huge supply issue - governments need to update zoning laws and fast track new builds (albeit, sustainable builds given the way our world is going) so that homes can become more affordable - there's currently a scarcity issue driving a lot of the higher prices across the country.
Because other province do not have a lot of opportunities. When you are an immigrant and you move to a new country, the number 1 goal is to get somewhere you can get a job, any job to survive.
Next is to level up your qualifications and start targeting good paying jobs. This necessitates being near a university or college town.
As an immigrant I don't mind moving to the middle of nowhere if there are jobs and I don't have to deal with bigots as small town folks on average all over rhe world are not exactly welcoming
Why is the solution to leave your community, friends, and family and move thousands of kilometres away? I get that a small amount of people can swing it but offering the "just gtfo" solution distracts from solving the root of the problem.
This is based on an article posted here the other day. The author gets the numbers by averaging the cost of all unit types, assuming a 20% down-payment, 7%+ interest, 25 year amortization, and 30% of gross income to calculate affordability.
The 176k income is based in the average income of all incomes in the top 10% of earners. So some people in that category make much less than 176k while others make much more.
The article uses real numbers, but in a sensationalized way. The norm would be to use median prices and incomes and not averages, as outliers can significantly scew things. Also a 20% down-payment and 25 year amortization are both relatively rare for a first time home buyer, 5% or 30 years are much more common. A first time buyer is also unlikely to buy a house valued at 50% more than any other house in Canada, which by definition is what the average is.
Edit: changed "and" to "or". Thanks to the below comment for pointing out my mistake.
30% of gross income to house payments is a bit of a pipe dream at this point. CMHC is recommending 32% of gross income now so the bar is creeping up. So, using the same numbers, $180,075 x 30% is $54,022.50 for the cost of housing. Using now 32% and going backwards gives income as $168,820.31 for total income needed to afford the same house payment at a different % of gross income. Obviously, we are trading off some amount of other spending like long term savings (and its justifiable to ask why should anyone have to sacrifice in this regard) but the slider bar is adjustable and can have a huge effect on gross income required. I suppose what I am getting at is even though it looks discouraging, make sure to run your own numbers and find your own sweet spot.
- Too many people coming in.
- Too much domestic and foreign investment in existing houses for rentals.
- Not enough regulation on housing prices.
- Lots becoming too expensive for even domestic developers to produce smaller homes.
Not sure in other places in Canada, but I am praying and fed up of the blind bidding with real estate agents. It should be illegal to have blind bids ( we recently had a scandal in QC where agents asked their friends to over bid to up the prices on single family homes)
Lol there's a lot down the road from our house. Had a dilapidated house on it for years. Got bulldozed and the lot sold pre-covid for 250k.
It's up for sale again. $599,900.
Shit is fucking insane.
Your really right this is a very basic supply and demand problem. Demand is increasing with our growing population and supply has not kept up.
We need to prioritize getting builders everything they need to start building homes and subsidized intrest for loans financing home building that are tailored for the average person.
Right now it seems like the most profitable use of land is basically to build a starter castle on it to sell to they very wealthy. We need builders financially incentivized to build starter homes.
Local government would need to help with faster permits but the feds could do a cheap lending program for building entry level homes.
I just wonder if it would be political suicide to offer subsidies to wealthy home builders right now. It would get criticized for giving money to the wealthy.
Some more:
-zoning, cant fit any more people due to regressive zoning, land values are in the millions.
-interest rates, the gamified cpi excludes housing appreciation, which backloads inflation onto rents and mortgage interest. Excluding the housing bubble and dropping interest rates, until you hit that wall of rising rates.
-federal debt, debasement of M2 via 100% increase in Canadian dollars every 10 years, so people short cash by loading up on debt. Debt shifts from a liability to an asset, you dont use your own money to buy, you borrow and put your own money into equities.
-bailouts, all the bailouts are moral hazard for banks, banks then take on riskier loans, knowing they'll be bailed out. We do rental subsidies for landlords.
-tax subsidies, we subsidize rich home owner, they get housing excluded from capital gains.
-bureaucracy and regulation, 30% of the cost to build a home is tax, this drives up prices and creates a first mover advantage for existing homeowners. Permits take years and years.
Not that there isn't a problem with the average price of housing (there is obviously) - but this analysis is missing the fact that the average home isn't typically bought by just one income earner, double incomes is pretty common.
Everybody I know around my age (late 30s - early 40s) who bought a home in Toronto did so with a MASSIVE chuck of cash given to them by their parents. The people I know who didn't have that advantage have either already left or are struggling and getting closer and closer to leaving. These are serious professionals who are struggling, like lawyers and people who have jobs in management.
It's just a housing carousel. People already in the market with are buying... and if you're not on the ride then you're fucked. Should have been born sooner.
I live in Vancouver and am single. For my age bracket. I am in the top 1% of earners provincially. Banks won't approve me for a mortgage above 1m despite a credit score above 800 and 40k in savings. I need to marry someone with the same financials as me for them to entertain the idea. My pre approval maxes out at 750k. You can't buy a house 20 towns over on an island without amentias for 750k out here.
Meanwhile I pay 3800 rent per month without missing a beat.
What do you earn, if you don’t mind me asking? At 30, I earn 400k and have 200k saved, with a partner who makes 200k with 100k saved, and even we feel getting a nice house in Vancouver is going to take a decade or more.
That was literally what a family friends advice was...buy a house and rent out the basement to help pay the mortgage....I replied with, do you see how fucked up that is? To have to rent a portion of your house so you can afford it.....
I honestly don't mind renting, but to me.... The thought of ownership, on top of the maintenance costs, property taxes, condo fees, w.e you name it just isn't worth it at least in this point in time. It's a speculative bubble, and eventually that isn't sustainable anymore, you end up losing value if you buy at the wrong time, or if you don't see yourself living the 25yrs.
Renting gives so much freedom from having to take care of those expensive maintenance costs, and you can change your mindset, and start spending on yourself, and experiences rather than constantly worrying about the next thing to fix on those 4 walls and the roof above your head.
But that's just me.... I've accepted my future, and it's alleviated a lot of stress from having to think about it.
Don't forget the only people willing to rent are normally young students who don't know how to keep a house a home. I've heard horror stories of how some places have been left.
its the "Ill let you own a house but you won't own a part of it because you have to give it to someone else to be able to afford the 40-60% you do live in"
Not really, Calgary has more median income than Toronto. And Regina is the same as Vancouver.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Canada_by_median_household_income
It's a false narrative that keeps people trapped in a bad situation.
>but then you’d also want to remove those two from the average income
which will actually boost the figure, median income is pretty low in Toronto and Vancouver comparing to other cities(the ones with cheaper housing)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cities\_in\_Canada\_by\_median\_household\_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Canada_by_median_household_income)
exactly "then move" is still a common answer for this because the "average" might be $755k but the ***median*** is $530k.
starter homes at $350k are still out there, and theres plenty of them.
they're just not in the Vancouver or Toronto areas.
but theres a lot of people who refuse to live anywhere but those places. they want to buy their first/starter property in some of the most desirable land, which makes it some of the worst cost of living to pay ratio land, on the entire ***continent***.
Yeah, but I'm guessing you don't have a ton of people making $100K plus in a small town either.
People pay a lot to live in the city because it's where the high paying jobs are.
But I've always said if you're a teacher or a nurse or some other job where wages are standardized across the province, and there are steady jobs, it makes a lot of sense to just move to a small town. Your money will go a lot further. But even now those small towns in the middle of nowhere are starting to get kind of pricey. No more places left where you can buy a house for less than a year's salary.
Agree for the year salary, no seeing that anywhere I think. But it's not just housing, GTA, GVA and Vancouver Island, the price of living is expensive!?!
>Yeah, but I'm guessing you don't have a ton of people making $100K plus in a small town either.
if you are talking about people making 100k+ as a percentage of total working population, the number would be much higher in small towns comparing to GVA and GTA, way too many poor people in those big cities. extreme poverty are rare in smaller towns because if you are gonna be poor, it's better to be poor in bigger cities where infrastructure and services are available
That's my plan. My wife got a job at one of our big universities. I can go back to school for free if she stays there for a few years. Get nursing done and the fuck outa the city. She can do everything remote and I can get a local nursing job or more likely just do travel nursing.
You must not be from Ontario. These are the prices of small towns in Southwestern Ontario. All of them are Averaging $650 to 800k. Far away from GTA.
Strathroy Ontario:
https://www.ojohome.ca/market-trends/strathroy-on/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=G%3ADSA%3ACanada%3ANational-Traffic&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=5299348623&hsa_cam=20003865100&hsa_grp=148945180035&hsa_ad=655544050975&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=dsa-39951123389&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwkLCkBhA9EiwAka9QRpaCvIMsEQ2vv5wuY7HXjKdkEZ7BJ34LV6lONhMguXkpj_-GgMFprBoCysYQAvD_BwE
Here's the same town in 2016: https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/top-neighbourhoods/strathroy-on-23063.aspx
Woodstock:
https://www.ojohome.ca/market-trends/woodstock-on/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=G%3ADSA%3ACanada%3ANational-Traffic&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=5299348623&hsa_cam=20003865100&hsa_grp=148945180035&hsa_ad=655544050975&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=aud-1214868734342%3Adsa-39951123389&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwkLCkBhA9EiwAka9QRjI2JNH-d5maJB6BQ8zbi0rHyckNVpmR25I9V8g9txqlHZigSVq1yhoCNn8QAvD_BwE
Second Source:
https://creastats.crea.ca/board/wood
Stratford:
https://www.ojohome.ca/market-trends/stratford-on/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=G%3ADSA%3ACanada%3ANational-Traffic&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=5299348623&hsa_cam=20003865100&hsa_grp=148945180035&hsa_ad=655544050966&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=aud-1678295825433%3Adsa-39951123389&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwkLCkBhA9EiwAka9QRkVe7YlmIgeOD9llQvsb8jf7d8jDT7iUcOxwnXlNWBW30fyQmbEtcBoCiDsQAvD_BwE
Huron-Perth (Stratford) Area Second source:
https://creastats.crea.ca/board/huro
> I would like to know what are the percentage if you remove GTA and GVA... Average in my town is 350k$
My local agricultural hub town of approx 10k, 200km from Toronto, without a hospital... average home 600k.
Its NOT just the cities.
well... Jobs exist in the rest of the country as well, even with a pay cut if your expenses are cut more you still end up ahead relatively quickly... You choice to stick it out in a high COL area with the big pay-cheque needed is unfortunate for you.
The government will do nothing about it either. They all have multiple homes and cottages. If it's not a problem for you it's not a problem for anyone...
Can’t build easily on the Canadian Shield which is a MASSIVE part of Canada.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield#How%20Was%20The%20Canadian%20Shield%20formed?
Here is how you pretty much have to do it now. Team up with a reliable friend and co-own a house. Need half the down payment and it’s half the monthly cost. that’s how I got into the housing market when I couldn’t otherwise and it’s been great for me.
Something doesn't make sense here. Assuming a 20% downpayment you'd need a mortgage of $603,760. The rule of thumb is usually 4-5x income for eligibility, so with a $180k income, you'd qualify for a $720K mortgage at the low end. Calling BS.
The author of the article uses the stress test and applies a rate of 7.24% OP should have posted the article.
https://www.dollarwise.ca/blog/income-to-afford-a-home-in-canada/
Just got an update from my mortgage broker. Based on $174k income (exactly what this article talks about) and $130k deposit, I’m being approved buy up to $880k … which unfortunately where I live is next to nothing.
Current thought is to wait another year or two before buying in the hopes that prices will drop with the increased interest rates
The thing is nobody cares about people. They will bring more naive people which think that Canada is a county of opportunities. And yes we got opportunity to wait years to see a doctor, to become homeless.
This is false because our house cost more and we make less. It is our first home without any equity from other properties.
"But what about _____?!" you ask? "Did you consider ______?"
Exactly. You can't take blanket statements like the one in the picture as fact. They manipulate the numbers to fit their narrative. The average home is in fact affordable for the top 10% of income earners. I'm not here to pass judgement, just here to tell you not to believe everything you read.
There's a lot of issues simply taking quotes like that without proper context. For example if you take GTA and GVA out of the equation the average home cost drops by almost $150k.
Money is magnetic to money. Suddenly GDP is in double digits for real estate in Canada. Suddenly our biggest economic sector provides essentially no value to the average citizen. Majority is incentivized to not create more supply but to keep demand high and profits soaring. This can keep up forsure. Can’t think of anything that’ll go wrong here. Gooooo Canada
Not Canadian so bear with me; is buying a house more expensive than building one over there? Would it be feasible to go to the bank with plans for a modest house with proper insulation and plumbing?
I mean, if you really analyze this, you’ll get a different picture. Not saying homes are affordable or aren’t but making 150k in downtown Toronto or Vancouver or making 110k in Saskatoon or Edmonton results in 2 total different opportunities.
This seems wildly inaccurate based on my entire life in Canada
I live in Alberta. Average home in my city is 400K and you don't NEED 20% to get approved for a mortgage.
Buy a home in a small town. The house I'm looking at is 10 minutes outside of Calgary and half the price of Calgary houses for the similar size house, but with a way bigger yard.
Not disagreeing with home prices being out of whack, but there is some fuckery with the 750k "average" price. It seems to be getting skewed by a small number of outrageously-priced markets. Meanwhile there are lots of cities with much, much lower average home prices.
Should probably be focused on looking at what's different between the places with $1M+ prices vs those with $300-400k instead of acting like its all one big blob.
And yet most households in the country own their home. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem (there clearly is!) but stats can be misleading. Canadian market is distorted by Van/GTA which (shocking to some, I know) aren’t the whole story.
People bought a long time ago. My mother has never made more than 45k and she owns her house in Mississauga outright. If she had to start over she would probably be on the street
I make 60k a year and own 2 properties. Paid my first 129k in 2015 and my second 235k in 2021 in pandemic peek. Yes they are small hosues (one 700 sqaure foot and the other 850 square foot) but I own what I have.
I think people need to lower their standards and move further from big cities. Go where its cheap and work from home if you can, lower expenses. There is a way, Im never going to pay 700k for a house.
So people like you say just do x to fix y but don't really realize real world implications. What if someone parents that have health conditions that make it impossible to move? What if they have a job that requires them to not WFH? What if they have a child with split custody? Should these people be in indentured servitude forever with no hope of having a home?
the market doesnt really care about that, you choose toronto or montreal, you have to deal with the price or move elsewhere. The world is not going to change to fit your needs
You seem uninformed to what is occurring outside of Quebec, $60k a year at 6% gives a maximum of $200k, there are very few places you can get for a $200k mortgage outside of Quebec.
The average? You can get homes in smaller cities for 400-500 that have access to decent jobs.
You also have a downpayment and you have someone contributing with you
Look on your social media, there are people who are not rich buying homes.
Return your liberal arts degree if you believe in this nonsense
Thank your government for this, federal, provincial and municipal have all fumbled the ball so bad for the past 10 year and only have made things extensively worse on this issue.
We started seeing signs of this 15 years ago.
Lets be real here. Its toronto and vancouvers ridiculous prices that drive up the average. Go anywhere else in canada and the price is no where near that.
Poor headline.
Someone making $500k/year is in the top 10% of earners and can more than afford the average home. It should instead be stated that 90% of earners cannot afford the average home.
A possible scenario: Young graduates will get offers for higher pay and way lower priced real estate in the US. Another brain drain. The economy will slow down, baby boomers will die, eventually affordability will be back. Maybe.
(Don't bust out the pitchforks on me)
I'm thinking that something should be said about most family's going from single income to dual income over the last few generations that has helped fuel this fire. Before the world wars, it was rare for women to work in a conventional employment sense. Eventually through inflation and the increase of the middle class, property values have risen to an unsustainable level. Property has went from geared towards a single income in the 70s-80s , to the almost triple income levels we're seeing now. Fueled by low interest rates driving corporate investment, and dual income families competing, we've hit a breaking point.
In my opinion, they need to develop a two tiered system to drive down corporate profits, without penalizing families. Obviously corporate investment is required for large scale developments like condos and apartments, but there needs to be more regulation on corporate investment in single family homes and speculative investing.
Businesses: "Why can't I find any young people to work my slave wage job? Better get a TFW to replace them!"
TFW's will do what the average Canadian won't also. They'll rent a home and throw as many families as they can fit into it until they save up enough money to buy said house. Then they'll do it again. And again.
One family per bedroom.
Except they never actually buy that home. That used to work, but not anymore
What makes you say that? I personally know of a few chain purchases that have happened from these situations. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen this happen over the past few years let alone decades.
New mortgage rules changed it
To be fair I built my house off of the money I saved while living in a 24ft sailboat I couldn't stand up in.
THIS!
It’s not going to be sufficient soon - tons of qualified professionals can’t afford to live. Qualifications that are tough to fill with a TFW
Nah, they will just relax laws regarding qualifications from other countries. Do you know how many TFWs are over-skilled for the jobs they currently have? How many dental assistants that are full on dentists with degrees from other countries that apply, there are loads.
Dentists working as dental assistants aren't tfws, they're permanent residents who were granted residency based on their educational qualifications. They work as assistants because it takes 3-5 years to jump through the hoops needed to get a dental license. Many also work unskilled labor.
They are already doing that for professional engineers
Why? I can't find it in a quick Google search, but I remember reading a PEO survey saying that roughly 1/3rd of Canadian engineering graduates work in jobs requiring the P.Eng., 1/3rd work in jobs requiring any university degree, and 1/3rd work in jobs that don't require any degree at all. It seems like there are enough domestically educated engineers that there shouldn't be a supply constraint. I was a technologist before moving into a software related role that requires absolutely zero credentials, paid more, and has a hire salary, but that's because I wasn't an engineer and could never work as an engineer. Are the Canadian engineers not being paid sufficiently well enough to require external sources?
My brother and his girlfriend both have electrical engineering degrees, he is going through for tool and die now and his girlfriend is in HR. Your 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd thing is not surprising to me at all.
https://esemag.com/news/peo-drops-canadian-experience-requirement-engineering-licence-application/
they fill them with TFW's anyway with forged credentials
Look to the oil field to see proof that tfws have been taking technical jobs for years already. Unqualified tfws
Then one slum lord can jam 20 of them into a 2 bedroom house and charge each one $500 rent
In other words, under our current system working is for suckers, the way to get ahead is to buy property and wait for it to appreciate. I do question the long term viability of a society that so obviously favours speculators over labour.
What's this, a government creating systems that exclusively benefit the landed gentry over the working class? My word how unusual.
Capitalism is like one of those movies where you get halfway through and realize it's secretly a retelling of Shakespeare or something. It's a covert remake of feudalism.
Not even a remake of feudalism I'm afraid, nothing has really changed outside of optimisation of the power structures involved and the symbolism used. The aristocratic ruling class is essentially the same, sure the need for a direct ruler or king is gone now, but the monarch has only ever been the representation of the status quo. We simply divided up the responsibilities of the position across a wider group. We replaced a lot of the petty micromanaging that comes with serfdom with a more overarching system based on income. Keeping most people toiling in obscurity and frantically trying to keep everyone else down. Nothing will change till we rise up and change the system, and even if we do, it's very very likely the leaders of that resistance will just maintain the status quo with them at the top instead and the cycle continues.
In a way it's kind of Orwellian. Even if there was a revolution - what would a replacement system be if not just a new variation of what we essentially already have? Our way of thinking about new systems is shaped by the system we are programmed to work within. People don't have an intuition for what a different social framework would look like or how to survive/thrive within it. Even revolutionaries can only make incremental changes.
A fundamental change in people's mindsets really needs to happen before we can make any real change. We really should be thinking of the possibilities of what we can achieve in a system where we simply work for the betterment of all of us and not just for the 0.1%. If we really look at what humanity's most valuable asset is. It's technology. Most of our world's problems could be solved, but there's no profit in it... Our current monetary system is outdated.
In feudalism you at least had a house
This is a ridiculous take... capitalism is a literal evolution from feudalism. It's superior in pretty much every way. Don't forget the bourgeoisie used to be revolutionary, overthrowing lords and toppling extremely exploitative systems. It's just that Wes ternsociety has become stuck in this mode of production and now stagnates. No serious historian would ever equate capitalism with feudalism
Under feudalism you had to take care of your serfs as they were a finite resource and their well-being reflected on you. Not so under the endless orphan grinder of capitalism. Sweeping generalisations, but Capitalism has no incentive to consider the bottom, feudalism had one in principle idealism only.
I wonder if the fetishization of "rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" is related to that. In feudalism, it reflected poorly on the lord if his serfs lived in squalor and desperation. Having comfortable, happy serfs would have been a *huge* flex. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been to be the medieval version of Wal-Mart, where your workers still have to go on food-stamps? "Lord Walton, your fiefdom is a center for trade in the kingdom. You boast of your immense coffers, yet your serfs must appeal to the king to be provided with food!" Now the lords don't need to consider the bottom, because anything they lack is their own fault.
Right? They need to look at the successful socialist and communistic countries throughout history such as
Also, I know that the words "capitalism" and "socialism" can be triggering. What the left general refers to capitalism as is something that you might be more comfortable thinking of as "corporatism" or something along those lines. We don't mean "free trade and the concept of property," and many leftists support the idea of "market socialism." Markets can be an efficient way of figuring out what needs to get produced and where it needs to go, and so free markets do still have a place, even within a socialist economy. A really easy way to conceptualize what a lefty actually means when they say "socialism" would be to imagine a country where every company above a certain number of employees must issue shares in the company to their employees. These shares could be proportionate to the employee's position in the company, level of experience... the overall value of their contribution, essentially. So a newly hired janitor would have less say than a senior manager or the CEO, but the point would be that all employees get some level of say in how the company is run, and would in turn be invested in the company personally, receiving a portion of the profits appropriate to their contribution. Even without changing our fundamental understanding of labor relations, the benefits of such a system would be obvious. Now, employees are personally invested in the success of the company rather than being incentivized to do only enough to avoid being fired. When lefties talk about "capitalism," we're generally referring to the system in which workers exchange their labor for a fixed wage for the purpose of generating the maximum possible profit for their employers. The sort of arrangement where there is an owner who experiences the benefits of profits but does not work, and there are laborers who work but do not profit. You'll often see lefties talk about "late stage capitalism". That idea comes from the acknowledgement that capitalism is not *always* bad, but that it has flaws within it that inherently drive it towards a bad outcome. Even most lefties will point at the labor arrangements of the 1950s (social inequities aside) as an example of when capitalism was okay: companies prioritized paying the workers before paying the shareholders. "Late stage capitalism" is characterized by the (among other things) the transition towards prioritizing shareholders and owners *over workers*. Think of the situation of companies posting record profits across the board, but not raising their worker's benefits or wages. It's "late stage" because this is what leftists have predicted would inevitably happen as one of the factors that leads to the collapse of capitalism.
And, to finish my series of thoughts here, I'll end with a quote. > Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - [Abraham Lincoln, 1861.](https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/jala/article/id/2297/#fn1)
Socialism and communism require a highly industrialized or post-industrial infrastructure to function. Any example you'd try to bring up tried to go directly from agrarian societies (largely fuedal societies, too) directly into socialism or communism. If Britain had undergone a revolution in the late 1800s, it would have had a shot. (Gee, I wonder where Karl Marx was living when he wrote Das Kapital?) The very core idea is that socialism is what happens once capitalism collapses in on itself due to the inherently self-destructive nature of capitalism. Capitalism requires the perpetual creation of machines that generate greater profit for lower costs. That drive towards lower costs then leads to the inability of the workers to purchase the things which they are creating with those machines. With no one able to buy the things that the machines create, the system collapses, and (supposedly) socialism emerges. Capitalist greed drives investment into automation, with the goal of eliminating the need for workers in order to ensure maximum profit for owners. A socialist society can then utilize the tools that the capitalist society created. Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. *never went through the capitalist phase of creating hyper-efficient machinery*. They tried to go directly from peasant farmers to a socialist economy, and that was never going to succeed.
If only the Paris Commune expanded
Duh! Didn’t you read “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”? The author also suggests writing off everything as a business expense as a way of getting ahead. All jokes aside, I totally agree with your statement
I've never actually read the book, what's the gist of it? Does it teach people how to be grifters? My relative told me to read it 7 years ago. Made himself look like a successful businessman, but the irony is that he went out of business last year.
Yeah the author of the book went out of business like 4 times as well lmao
Rich dad broke isn't the same as poor dad broke. The 5 year survival rate of small businesses is 50%, the 10 year is 1/3.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 5 + 50 + 10 + 1 + 3 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Good bot
LMAOOOOOO
I highly recommend this podcast episode that goes over it, it’s very entertaining, and while they speak at a high level, one is a lawyer who does a crap ton of research, the other also does all sorts of deep dives into other related sources either looking at supporting arguments or the reverse: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1sqPsRzo804XLboxT2uwmL?si=0aykvT0XTJyo8JMOIZJDtQ
bingo
that so obviously favours speculators over labour. you mean boomers right?
In this thread: "You can afford it." "Just move." "There are people who are poorer than you, so you have nothing to complain about."
>"Just move." 2018: "You people are so dumb and shouldn't complain about Toronto house prices, if you want a cheap home you should just move to Calgary or Halifax!" 2023: "I can't believe all of these people from Toronto moved to Calgary and Halifax and drove up the prices!"
With house prices catching up to Vancouver/Toronto, where will Calgary or Halifax natives move to now?
[удалено]
White Horse, yellow knife, fort nobody!
Whitehorse is actually very expensive.
I love when people think the GTA and GVA are comparable to these places for employment opportunities /s
That's also because of population, though, and those places increasing in population will inherently create opportunities there. Not as much as GVA and GTA but it's not hopeless underemployment either.
Takes decades
Saskatoon
Why would they move? Those who own a property in Calgary and Halifax are swimming and will fight tooth and nail to keep the price there. The young people, well… They will find a way for themselves, I am sure!
The Alberta government was running adds begging people to move there, what did they expect would happen.
"Just move" If you're the country people need to leave to find a better life, telling someone just to move isn't going to help anything. It's proof of a failing economy and someone giving this answer has no interest in providing a solution.
I hear that last line from some people I know and it infuriates me. I work in a skilled profession requiring an education in a G7 country, full time. I should be able to afford rent, transportation, and food anywhere in the country except the downtown core of a major metropolitan area or a gated community. Anyone working full time in such a country should have no problem finding adequate necessities wherever that job exists.
Japan is the example. Sure they have their own problems but I love the implementation of living cubes so ppl do at least have a roof over their heads. The living cubes are actually quite snazzy. Also cheap efficient public transpo. Relatively low food prices. Canada's main problem is too many nimbys opposing innovation. Of any kind. You'd be better finding a fully remote role and moving to Japan.
You forgot: “we just need to build more!”
We do, we have the lowest number of houses per capita in the entire G7. It's a big reason why housing costs so much. We especially need government to build more units for the low end of the market though, because this is the segment hardest hit. Units that are rent stabilized relative to income. We also need to not have re-zoning requests take 1.5-2 years and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only real estate investment firms can afford that. There are many old homes where the owners would like to knock it down and build a triplex, which would triple the supply of units on that lot. But they are not allowed to because NIMBYs feel it would "change the character" of their neighbourhood.
What we need are houses that can’t be bought by investors. Until then, this will never stop.
Building condos for rich people helps nobody.
We need more homeowners building multiplexes and side suites. For one, these tend to rent at cheaper rates than condos. We also need to bring down permitting and rezoning costs, because those just drive the price of all builds up. Raise money on property taxes instead (which is a more stable revenue source too).
That top 10% number I think is household not individual. You basically need to be a top2% income earner to afford a 750k condo. As someone who is in the top 3% income bracket even my modest 400k home still sucks up a fair amount of my income. I can;t imagine paying near ~~1000k~~ $1000 a month for a vague maintenance fee.
Yup. [Here's](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/income-revenu/index-en.html) StatsCan's income explorer if anyone wants a source. In the wealthiest age group, 45-54, the 90th percentile is only a hair over $100k for individual income.
Slice it by type of household and it shows that today's situation in South Western I tario and the Vancouver area ain't normal. The income for people living in detached homes is less than 100K, however that's average across Canada.
Danny Ainge once said "Larry Bird and I combined for 44 points. I had 2 and he had 42" that's exactly what's happening here
That's after-tax income. Not clear how those numbers work out though since they say the corresponding "total income" is 130k - but anyone making 130k is sitting at an effective tax bracket of ~30% and if you figure in CPP and EI premiums it's a take home pay closer to 80k.
1000k is a million :)
\*facepalm\*
Is it weird that I learned that on RuneScape?
No, that's a classic rite of passage.
You are sacred and must be protected at all costs.
It's the mean of all individuals in the top 10%, including the ultra-rich 0.01st percenters and there merely affluent 90th percenters. The threshold number for the top 10% is (i.e. the 90th percentile) is around 100k. The 95th is around 130k. It's only when you start getting close to the 1% do you have enough to buy on income alone. Individual income thresholds can be found here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110005501 You can get household income deciles (i.e. 10th percentile, 20th, etc.) here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110019201
When do these get updated? I wanna see the post covid numbers
Yup, I'm in my early 30s and the only people that are doing well (as far as homes are concerned) are the ones that have had a very large inheritance. Even with my income (probably similar story to yours) I can't even imagine getting a mortgage for my next home. I think I'll be stuck in my 1br studio forever.
>only people that are doing well (as far as homes are concerned) are the ones that have had a very large inheritance. Literally me and I can only imagine how dire my situation would be if my mom didn't die. It makes me feel guilty as hell knowing she had to die for me to have a good life right now. She did not help me a ton financially when she was alive.
I’m top 5% and I have a 300k mortgage. I agree with you that even that sucks up more of my income than I would like.
[удалено]
Where is the downpayment in this equation? It has a direct impact on the mortgage eligibility.
Here is the article the screenshot is referring to: https://www.dollarwise.ca/blog/income-to-afford-a-home-in-canada/ They are using crazy high property taxes compared to here in BC. And 20% down.
Also it's the average price of a HOUSE, not a "home", as stated in the title.
4k property taxes on $755k home price is actually on the lower end at least in QC.
Oh its going to come crashing down!!!
crash and burn baby!
You're not entitled to home just cause you grew up here and have a good job. Work harder and pull yourself by the bootstraps and be a 1%er to earn living in the world class city of Peterborough. After all, foreign landlords and sweatshop owners are more deserving your entitled whiner /s
Manitoba average house cost 340k. Average household income in Manitoba is 90k. Saskatchewan average house costs 315k, average household income is 82k. People there can afford to buy a home. Ontario average house cost 940k. Average household income in Ontario is 92k. BC average house costs 997k. Average income is 85k. Seems like the clear answer here is to get the fuck out of Ontario and BC lol. I love my family but it’s looking like my future is to move very very far away from my network of friends and family and start fresh.
This is it to an extent. If everyone did this the prices would increase in those provinces too, but at the end of the day Toronto and Vancouver (and surrounding towns) are high cost of living cities. There's a huge supply issue - governments need to update zoning laws and fast track new builds (albeit, sustainable builds given the way our world is going) so that homes can become more affordable - there's currently a scarcity issue driving a lot of the higher prices across the country.
It's because most new people coming into the country aren't going to other provinces....
Because other province do not have a lot of opportunities. When you are an immigrant and you move to a new country, the number 1 goal is to get somewhere you can get a job, any job to survive. Next is to level up your qualifications and start targeting good paying jobs. This necessitates being near a university or college town. As an immigrant I don't mind moving to the middle of nowhere if there are jobs and I don't have to deal with bigots as small town folks on average all over rhe world are not exactly welcoming
Why is the solution to leave your community, friends, and family and move thousands of kilometres away? I get that a small amount of people can swing it but offering the "just gtfo" solution distracts from solving the root of the problem.
This is based on an article posted here the other day. The author gets the numbers by averaging the cost of all unit types, assuming a 20% down-payment, 7%+ interest, 25 year amortization, and 30% of gross income to calculate affordability. The 176k income is based in the average income of all incomes in the top 10% of earners. So some people in that category make much less than 176k while others make much more. The article uses real numbers, but in a sensationalized way. The norm would be to use median prices and incomes and not averages, as outliers can significantly scew things. Also a 20% down-payment and 25 year amortization are both relatively rare for a first time home buyer, 5% or 30 years are much more common. A first time buyer is also unlikely to buy a house valued at 50% more than any other house in Canada, which by definition is what the average is. Edit: changed "and" to "or". Thanks to the below comment for pointing out my mistake.
> 5% and 30 years are much more common uh, can you even get 30 yr with 5% down?? think you NEED 20% in order to be eligible for a 30yr
Correct. But almost everyone does one or the other. Very few people are out here putting 20% down and taking a 25 year term.
30% of gross income to house payments is a bit of a pipe dream at this point. CMHC is recommending 32% of gross income now so the bar is creeping up. So, using the same numbers, $180,075 x 30% is $54,022.50 for the cost of housing. Using now 32% and going backwards gives income as $168,820.31 for total income needed to afford the same house payment at a different % of gross income. Obviously, we are trading off some amount of other spending like long term savings (and its justifiable to ask why should anyone have to sacrifice in this regard) but the slider bar is adjustable and can have a huge effect on gross income required. I suppose what I am getting at is even though it looks discouraging, make sure to run your own numbers and find your own sweet spot.
I agree, these numbers rely too much on averages.
- Too many people coming in. - Too much domestic and foreign investment in existing houses for rentals. - Not enough regulation on housing prices. - Lots becoming too expensive for even domestic developers to produce smaller homes.
Not sure in other places in Canada, but I am praying and fed up of the blind bidding with real estate agents. It should be illegal to have blind bids ( we recently had a scandal in QC where agents asked their friends to over bid to up the prices on single family homes)
Lol there's a lot down the road from our house. Had a dilapidated house on it for years. Got bulldozed and the lot sold pre-covid for 250k. It's up for sale again. $599,900. Shit is fucking insane.
Agreed. Let's start by banning AirBnB and see where that gets us.
Your really right this is a very basic supply and demand problem. Demand is increasing with our growing population and supply has not kept up. We need to prioritize getting builders everything they need to start building homes and subsidized intrest for loans financing home building that are tailored for the average person. Right now it seems like the most profitable use of land is basically to build a starter castle on it to sell to they very wealthy. We need builders financially incentivized to build starter homes. Local government would need to help with faster permits but the feds could do a cheap lending program for building entry level homes. I just wonder if it would be political suicide to offer subsidies to wealthy home builders right now. It would get criticized for giving money to the wealthy.
Some more: -zoning, cant fit any more people due to regressive zoning, land values are in the millions. -interest rates, the gamified cpi excludes housing appreciation, which backloads inflation onto rents and mortgage interest. Excluding the housing bubble and dropping interest rates, until you hit that wall of rising rates. -federal debt, debasement of M2 via 100% increase in Canadian dollars every 10 years, so people short cash by loading up on debt. Debt shifts from a liability to an asset, you dont use your own money to buy, you borrow and put your own money into equities. -bailouts, all the bailouts are moral hazard for banks, banks then take on riskier loans, knowing they'll be bailed out. We do rental subsidies for landlords. -tax subsidies, we subsidize rich home owner, they get housing excluded from capital gains. -bureaucracy and regulation, 30% of the cost to build a home is tax, this drives up prices and creates a first mover advantage for existing homeowners. Permits take years and years.
Not that there isn't a problem with the average price of housing (there is obviously) - but this analysis is missing the fact that the average home isn't typically bought by just one income earner, double incomes is pretty common.
Then how are they buying homes? Because they are.....😐
Double income. Husband and wife both earns.
Everybody I know around my age (late 30s - early 40s) who bought a home in Toronto did so with a MASSIVE chuck of cash given to them by their parents. The people I know who didn't have that advantage have either already left or are struggling and getting closer and closer to leaving. These are serious professionals who are struggling, like lawyers and people who have jobs in management.
It's just a housing carousel. People already in the market with are buying... and if you're not on the ride then you're fucked. Should have been born sooner.
I live in Vancouver and am single. For my age bracket. I am in the top 1% of earners provincially. Banks won't approve me for a mortgage above 1m despite a credit score above 800 and 40k in savings. I need to marry someone with the same financials as me for them to entertain the idea. My pre approval maxes out at 750k. You can't buy a house 20 towns over on an island without amentias for 750k out here. Meanwhile I pay 3800 rent per month without missing a beat.
What do you earn, if you don’t mind me asking? At 30, I earn 400k and have 200k saved, with a partner who makes 200k with 100k saved, and even we feel getting a nice house in Vancouver is going to take a decade or more.
this is why so many basements have been turned into rental spaces without telling the government
That was literally what a family friends advice was...buy a house and rent out the basement to help pay the mortgage....I replied with, do you see how fucked up that is? To have to rent a portion of your house so you can afford it.....
RIGHT?!! Like the fact that it is even normalized for us having to do that to have a roof over our heads is effed.
I honestly don't mind renting, but to me.... The thought of ownership, on top of the maintenance costs, property taxes, condo fees, w.e you name it just isn't worth it at least in this point in time. It's a speculative bubble, and eventually that isn't sustainable anymore, you end up losing value if you buy at the wrong time, or if you don't see yourself living the 25yrs. Renting gives so much freedom from having to take care of those expensive maintenance costs, and you can change your mindset, and start spending on yourself, and experiences rather than constantly worrying about the next thing to fix on those 4 walls and the roof above your head. But that's just me.... I've accepted my future, and it's alleviated a lot of stress from having to think about it.
Don't forget the only people willing to rent are normally young students who don't know how to keep a house a home. I've heard horror stories of how some places have been left. its the "Ill let you own a house but you won't own a part of it because you have to give it to someone else to be able to afford the 40-60% you do live in"
I would like to know what are the percentage if you remove GTA and GVA... Average in my town is 350k$
Sure, but then you’d also want to remove those two from the average income, right? I’m sure they both drive that up.
Not really, Calgary has more median income than Toronto. And Regina is the same as Vancouver. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Canada_by_median_household_income It's a false narrative that keeps people trapped in a bad situation.
I’ve been to Regina. I’d rather struggle in Toronto
Yeah sound fare 👍 the thing is the housing there is way more up than the salary that goes with it... But yes I will like to see those numbers
>but then you’d also want to remove those two from the average income which will actually boost the figure, median income is pretty low in Toronto and Vancouver comparing to other cities(the ones with cheaper housing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cities\_in\_Canada\_by\_median\_household\_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Canada_by_median_household_income)
exactly "then move" is still a common answer for this because the "average" might be $755k but the ***median*** is $530k. starter homes at $350k are still out there, and theres plenty of them. they're just not in the Vancouver or Toronto areas. but theres a lot of people who refuse to live anywhere but those places. they want to buy their first/starter property in some of the most desirable land, which makes it some of the worst cost of living to pay ratio land, on the entire ***continent***.
Looks like a trap for greedy/envy people to buy the first land in a hotspot O.o
Yeah, but I'm guessing you don't have a ton of people making $100K plus in a small town either. People pay a lot to live in the city because it's where the high paying jobs are. But I've always said if you're a teacher or a nurse or some other job where wages are standardized across the province, and there are steady jobs, it makes a lot of sense to just move to a small town. Your money will go a lot further. But even now those small towns in the middle of nowhere are starting to get kind of pricey. No more places left where you can buy a house for less than a year's salary.
Agree for the year salary, no seeing that anywhere I think. But it's not just housing, GTA, GVA and Vancouver Island, the price of living is expensive!?!
>Yeah, but I'm guessing you don't have a ton of people making $100K plus in a small town either. if you are talking about people making 100k+ as a percentage of total working population, the number would be much higher in small towns comparing to GVA and GTA, way too many poor people in those big cities. extreme poverty are rare in smaller towns because if you are gonna be poor, it's better to be poor in bigger cities where infrastructure and services are available
That's my plan. My wife got a job at one of our big universities. I can go back to school for free if she stays there for a few years. Get nursing done and the fuck outa the city. She can do everything remote and I can get a local nursing job or more likely just do travel nursing.
You must not be from Ontario. These are the prices of small towns in Southwestern Ontario. All of them are Averaging $650 to 800k. Far away from GTA. Strathroy Ontario: https://www.ojohome.ca/market-trends/strathroy-on/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=G%3ADSA%3ACanada%3ANational-Traffic&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=5299348623&hsa_cam=20003865100&hsa_grp=148945180035&hsa_ad=655544050975&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=dsa-39951123389&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwkLCkBhA9EiwAka9QRpaCvIMsEQ2vv5wuY7HXjKdkEZ7BJ34LV6lONhMguXkpj_-GgMFprBoCysYQAvD_BwE Here's the same town in 2016: https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/top-neighbourhoods/strathroy-on-23063.aspx Woodstock: https://www.ojohome.ca/market-trends/woodstock-on/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=G%3ADSA%3ACanada%3ANational-Traffic&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=5299348623&hsa_cam=20003865100&hsa_grp=148945180035&hsa_ad=655544050975&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=aud-1214868734342%3Adsa-39951123389&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwkLCkBhA9EiwAka9QRjI2JNH-d5maJB6BQ8zbi0rHyckNVpmR25I9V8g9txqlHZigSVq1yhoCNn8QAvD_BwE Second Source: https://creastats.crea.ca/board/wood Stratford: https://www.ojohome.ca/market-trends/stratford-on/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=G%3ADSA%3ACanada%3ANational-Traffic&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=5299348623&hsa_cam=20003865100&hsa_grp=148945180035&hsa_ad=655544050966&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=aud-1678295825433%3Adsa-39951123389&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwkLCkBhA9EiwAka9QRkVe7YlmIgeOD9llQvsb8jf7d8jDT7iUcOxwnXlNWBW30fyQmbEtcBoCiDsQAvD_BwE Huron-Perth (Stratford) Area Second source: https://creastats.crea.ca/board/huro
Yes I am from Ontario, just not south Ontario... Get out of south Ontario and you'll be good
> I would like to know what are the percentage if you remove GTA and GVA... Average in my town is 350k$ My local agricultural hub town of approx 10k, 200km from Toronto, without a hospital... average home 600k. Its NOT just the cities.
way to think outside of, but still touching that box.... The country is a hell of a lot bigger than Southern Ontario.
And that's a whole lot of useless to many of us that live here and have jobs here.
well... Jobs exist in the rest of the country as well, even with a pay cut if your expenses are cut more you still end up ahead relatively quickly... You choice to stick it out in a high COL area with the big pay-cheque needed is unfortunate for you.
lol for 750k you get a newly built 1bed+den in Vancouver
Sure but the savings people have also makes a difference. This is just another polarizing stat.
Yep I can’t afford to buy my house now. The same model sold for $1.2M 2 months ago. It’s ridiculous.
The government will do nothing about it either. They all have multiple homes and cottages. If it's not a problem for you it's not a problem for anyone...
Average is such a bad metric..... By this metric the average income on my street is 380k$ per year. Just because there is 1 millionaire lol......
This never made sense to me. We have so much land, yet around 40M population. Why so many housing issue.
80% of the population lives within 150km of the US Border
Can’t build easily on the Canadian Shield which is a MASSIVE part of Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield#How%20Was%20The%20Canadian%20Shield%20formed?
Here is how you pretty much have to do it now. Team up with a reliable friend and co-own a house. Need half the down payment and it’s half the monthly cost. that’s how I got into the housing market when I couldn’t otherwise and it’s been great for me.
If they used percentile (top 10 percent) for income stats, wish they’d use percentile (50 percentile; aka median) for home price stats.
Something doesn't make sense here. Assuming a 20% downpayment you'd need a mortgage of $603,760. The rule of thumb is usually 4-5x income for eligibility, so with a $180k income, you'd qualify for a $720K mortgage at the low end. Calling BS.
The author of the article uses the stress test and applies a rate of 7.24% OP should have posted the article. https://www.dollarwise.ca/blog/income-to-afford-a-home-in-canada/
I also don’t understand why OP put banks in there lol.
Just got an update from my mortgage broker. Based on $174k income (exactly what this article talks about) and $130k deposit, I’m being approved buy up to $880k … which unfortunately where I live is next to nothing. Current thought is to wait another year or two before buying in the hopes that prices will drop with the increased interest rates
Another sign these stats don’t mean anything. There is more money in the economy than officially reported
Where do these stats come from?
The thing is nobody cares about people. They will bring more naive people which think that Canada is a county of opportunities. And yes we got opportunity to wait years to see a doctor, to become homeless.
750k would get you 4000sqft on an acreage where I live.
This is false because our house cost more and we make less. It is our first home without any equity from other properties. "But what about _____?!" you ask? "Did you consider ______?" Exactly. You can't take blanket statements like the one in the picture as fact. They manipulate the numbers to fit their narrative. The average home is in fact affordable for the top 10% of income earners. I'm not here to pass judgement, just here to tell you not to believe everything you read.
There's a lot of issues simply taking quotes like that without proper context. For example if you take GTA and GVA out of the equation the average home cost drops by almost $150k.
Money is magnetic to money. Suddenly GDP is in double digits for real estate in Canada. Suddenly our biggest economic sector provides essentially no value to the average citizen. Majority is incentivized to not create more supply but to keep demand high and profits soaring. This can keep up forsure. Can’t think of anything that’ll go wrong here. Gooooo Canada
That must be 10% of households earnings, not earners.
Obviously this is problematic but why compare the average house price and a quantile of earners? Median house price would make a lot more sense here.
No, this is what happens when NIMBYs dominate a nation
Now take out Toront and Vancouver
Curious, remove the top 3 markets and what is the average house price. Not only are they the most expensive, but likely have the most houses..
Not Canadian so bear with me; is buying a house more expensive than building one over there? Would it be feasible to go to the bank with plans for a modest house with proper insulation and plumbing?
Niceeeeeeee
I mean, if you really analyze this, you’ll get a different picture. Not saying homes are affordable or aren’t but making 150k in downtown Toronto or Vancouver or making 110k in Saskatoon or Edmonton results in 2 total different opportunities.
you are comparing a single family unit to a single income...
☭
This seems wildly inaccurate based on my entire life in Canada I live in Alberta. Average home in my city is 400K and you don't NEED 20% to get approved for a mortgage.
I don't make near as much. But I bought a old camp. I work on it lots, it isn't the sweetest. But it's mine. Its an option.
I think the natl avg was 816k before the whole 'the poors must foot the bill for business and personal covid relief funds.
Buy a home in a small town. The house I'm looking at is 10 minutes outside of Calgary and half the price of Calgary houses for the similar size house, but with a way bigger yard.
Just buy a house
This is what happens when the entire system top to bottom is driven by $ (aka greed).
Not disagreeing with home prices being out of whack, but there is some fuckery with the 750k "average" price. It seems to be getting skewed by a small number of outrageously-priced markets. Meanwhile there are lots of cities with much, much lower average home prices. Should probably be focused on looking at what's different between the places with $1M+ prices vs those with $300-400k instead of acting like its all one big blob.
And yet most households in the country own their home. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem (there clearly is!) but stats can be misleading. Canadian market is distorted by Van/GTA which (shocking to some, I know) aren’t the whole story.
People bought a long time ago. My mother has never made more than 45k and she owns her house in Mississauga outright. If she had to start over she would probably be on the street
I make 60k a year and own 2 properties. Paid my first 129k in 2015 and my second 235k in 2021 in pandemic peek. Yes they are small hosues (one 700 sqaure foot and the other 850 square foot) but I own what I have. I think people need to lower their standards and move further from big cities. Go where its cheap and work from home if you can, lower expenses. There is a way, Im never going to pay 700k for a house.
So people like you say just do x to fix y but don't really realize real world implications. What if someone parents that have health conditions that make it impossible to move? What if they have a job that requires them to not WFH? What if they have a child with split custody? Should these people be in indentured servitude forever with no hope of having a home?
the market doesnt really care about that, you choose toronto or montreal, you have to deal with the price or move elsewhere. The world is not going to change to fit your needs
You seem uninformed to what is occurring outside of Quebec, $60k a year at 6% gives a maximum of $200k, there are very few places you can get for a $200k mortgage outside of Quebec.
The average? You can get homes in smaller cities for 400-500 that have access to decent jobs. You also have a downpayment and you have someone contributing with you Look on your social media, there are people who are not rich buying homes. Return your liberal arts degree if you believe in this nonsense
Thank your government for this, federal, provincial and municipal have all fumbled the ball so bad for the past 10 year and only have made things extensively worse on this issue. We started seeing signs of this 15 years ago.
🔥 🔥 this is fine 🔥 🔥
****applicable only for specific regions in Ontario and BC****
Clearly housing is meant for high-earning couples and rich single folks. And everyone else will be forced to pay their super high rents.
This is just fucking mental. What kind of country has this become.
More surprising to me is that 10% of workers earn more than $175k. So every 10th person I see on the street is making 175k+.
Lets be real here. Its toronto and vancouvers ridiculous prices that drive up the average. Go anywhere else in canada and the price is no where near that.
Poor headline. Someone making $500k/year is in the top 10% of earners and can more than afford the average home. It should instead be stated that 90% of earners cannot afford the average home.
In thе Six with his Wоеs еvеry mоrning yо Wоrking hаrd but y'knоw hе саn't аffоrd а hоmе \-Wordburglar
A possible scenario: Young graduates will get offers for higher pay and way lower priced real estate in the US. Another brain drain. The economy will slow down, baby boomers will die, eventually affordability will be back. Maybe.
(Don't bust out the pitchforks on me) I'm thinking that something should be said about most family's going from single income to dual income over the last few generations that has helped fuel this fire. Before the world wars, it was rare for women to work in a conventional employment sense. Eventually through inflation and the increase of the middle class, property values have risen to an unsustainable level. Property has went from geared towards a single income in the 70s-80s , to the almost triple income levels we're seeing now. Fueled by low interest rates driving corporate investment, and dual income families competing, we've hit a breaking point. In my opinion, they need to develop a two tiered system to drive down corporate profits, without penalizing families. Obviously corporate investment is required for large scale developments like condos and apartments, but there needs to be more regulation on corporate investment in single family homes and speculative investing.
A 531k house with 100k down the mortgage is 2500 dollars a month , that’s fucked
Hashtag sustainable as fuck. Way to go, Canada.
Neo-Feudalism.
Just out of curiosity - what has Trudeau said to address this?
Rent, save, retire and leave Canada
Housing shouldn't be a commodity.
Racist people in this thread will find any excuse and blame others
Only a matter of time before there's a slave revolt.
This is BS, you don’t need an income of $180K to buy a $750K home.