Personal Finance

Another real estate bubble?

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 17th, 2013 5:22 pm
Tags:
None

Poll: Are we in a 2nd real estate bubble?

  • Total votes: 0. You have voted on this poll.
Sr. Member
Mar 15, 2006
862 posts
6 upvotes
This thread kills me.
The things you own end up owning you.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6602 posts
195 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Troodon wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 4:16 pm
But they can work at McDonalds. Also, the most efficient way would to be give them a $10/hour subsidy. It costs less than keeping GM alive and it's the most direct method of solving the problem.
Lots and lots of people working at McDonald's does not make for a long-term stable prosperous society.

Besides, need I remind you that the health nuts want to sink McDonalds? :-P

In addition: think about the underlying assumption of all economics models, namely that property rights are secure and do not cost anything to secure. If you've got a large rowdy crowd in the streets, that assumption may not be true...
Member
Nov 14, 2007
332 posts
1 upvote
VivienM wrote:
Aug 29th, 2009 11:46 am
Why does everybody always assume that public transit is the solution to every transportation problem?

Toronto doesn't need decent public transport. Toronto needs to realize it's not a high density squished European-style city (see: Paris, London, NYC) and build a proper road infrastructure (why did the lefties ever kill the perfectly sensible 1960s-era expressway project, anyways?) to sustain a North American sprawled-out city.
You said you lived in Toronto? You must be blind.... Have you seen all the high rise here?
It looks like you never step foot in any of the cities you mentioned especially London!
Toronto population - Density 3,972/km2
London population - Density 4,758/km
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6602 posts
195 upvotes
Toronto, ON
albatman wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:01 pm
You said you lived in Toronto? You must be blind.... Have you seen all the high rise here?
It looks like you never step foot in any of the cities you mentioned especially London!
Toronto population - Density 3,972/km2
London population - Density 4,758/km
I haven't been to London. I've been to Paris, though...

All the high rises in Toronto, though? Downtown, sure. But as you head away from the 'old' city of Toronto into Etobicoke/Scarborough/North York/etc and further away from subway lines, you get a lot of single-family detached houses.

I don't know about London, but Paris doesn't have huge neighbourhoods full of non-luxury single-family detached homes, that's for sure...
Member
Nov 14, 2007
332 posts
1 upvote
alanbrenton wrote:
Aug 29th, 2009 12:15 pm
What do you mean by lost income? Aren't executives paid salaries and not wages? Unless they are playing the forex market, I doubt they're making money after the regular work day. Maybe what you meant is opportunity cost of traveling? Isn't that why people have smartphones, so they can make use of travel time for personal or business purposes? Aren't executives paid salaries and not wages?
Generally speaking, when you are highly paid, you think of time as money. Wasting an extra hour of your day on commute is not a good investment of your time, and compared with a job that does not need that commute is like taking 15% cut from your salary if it was fixed. It is also time taking away from spending with your family.
Most highly paid professionals are paid hourly or with bonuses (lawyers, doctors, accountants, consultants... the list goes on)
Even executives they are paid bonuses, and don't have to work full 8 hours, they can leave when they finish their work.

If you are at the bottom of the food chain, yes.... you are paid a fixed salary and you have to work a set number of hours a day.... you have no choice, and you cannot buy a house downtown because you cannot afford it either...
Member
Nov 14, 2007
332 posts
1 upvote
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:04 pm
I haven't been to London. I've been to Paris, though...

All the high rises in Toronto, though? Downtown, sure. But as you head away from the 'old' city of Toronto into Etobicoke/Scarborough/North York/etc and further away from subway lines, you get a lot of single-family detached houses.

I don't know about London, but Paris doesn't have huge neighbourhoods full of non-luxury single-family detached homes, that's for sure...
It looks like you don't even know Toronto itself!!!!
Etobicoke, Mississauga, and north york has high rise of course. Probably just Etobicoke has more high rise than London or Paris.
I lived in all the cities you mentioned, including Ottawa.
Ottawa is the only city that looks like a suburb. with a density of 300/km2 you cannot apply it's model on a real large city like Toronto no matter how many roads you build. Heck even Ottawa started to have traffic jams now in Kanata.

The type of home and luxury vs not, does not matter... what matter is population. If you take a car off the highway from a commuter in Etobicoke, you are giving more room for the one in Mississauga to arrive in 20 minutes, its basic math.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6602 posts
195 upvotes
Toronto, ON
albatman wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:26 pm
It looks like you don't even know Toronto itself!!!!
Etobicoke, Mississauga, and north york has high rise of course. Probably just Etobicoke has more high rise than London or Paris.
I lived in all the cities you mentioned, including Ottawa.
Ottawa is the only city that looks like a suburb. with a density of 300/km2 you cannot apply it's model on a real large city like Toronto no matter how many roads you build. Heck even Ottawa started to have traffic jams now in Kanata.
Don't forget that the LEGAL definition of the city of Ottawa includes a LOT of places other than Ottawa/Nepean/Kanata/etc. Most of that is very low density, agricultural and the like...

If you've lived in Ottawa, you must have seen how far out the "Welcome to Ottawa" sign on the highway is. It is ridiculous to claim that the actual populated areas in Ottawa have 1/10th the density of Toronto.

And yes, Etobicoke or Mississauga or North York has some high-rise stuff. But there are also tons of single-family dwellings. Try going further away from subway stations... most of the high-rise development has been around subway stations and major streets like Yonge/Bloor/Sheppard/etc.
albatman wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:26 pm
The type of home and luxury vs not, does not matter... what matter is population. If you take a car off the highway from a commuter in Etobicoke, you are giving more room for the one in Mississauga to arrive in 20 minutes, its basic math.
The type of home matters when it comes to density! Single-family detached houses will produce less density than townhouses, which are less dense than small apartment buildings, which are less dense than big high-rises.

As for luxury vs not, it's a money thing. In Manhattan or Paris, there ARE single-family houses in the city limits, but they're going to be crazy expensive and only very high-income people can afford to live in them. For everybody else, there are apartments, which are higher density...
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
53 upvotes
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 5:43 pm
In addition: think about the underlying assumption of all economics models, namely that property rights are secure and do not cost anything to secure. If you've got a large rowdy crowd in the streets, that assumption may not be true...
With the way that capital is taxed in Canada and in most western nations -- property rights aren't secure.

The fact that the government can just create inflation -- and then confiscate a good chunk of your property on the basis of an inflated value, in the form of a 'capital gains tax' is proof of that.
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 26, 2009
1031 posts
3 upvotes
Surrey, BC
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 5:43 pm
Lots and lots of people working at McDonald's does not make for a long-term stable prosperous society.

Besides, need I remind you that the health nuts want to sink McDonalds? :-P

In addition: think about the underlying assumption of all economics models, namely that property rights are secure and do not cost anything to secure. If you've got a large rowdy crowd in the streets, that assumption may not be true...
I did say that the government can subsidize them $10/hour on top of their $8/hour wage. $18/hour is a good wage.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6602 posts
195 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Troodon wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 9:43 pm
I did say that the government can subsidize them $10/hour on top of their $8/hour wage. $18/hour is a good wage.
Okay, and how do you convince people to pay taxes to fund that scheme?
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2009
3927 posts
1527 upvotes
Toronto
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 10:07 pm
Okay, and how do you convince people to pay taxes to fund that scheme?
That's politics, not economics.

US government didn't convince their citizen when they fund the GM.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 26, 2009
1031 posts
3 upvotes
Surrey, BC
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 10:07 pm
Okay, and how do you convince people to pay taxes to fund that scheme?
The entire subsidy to GM is about 7.4B. 7.4 billion dollars is enough to pay 148,000 people $10/hour, 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year for 25 years. In other words, if GM had only 14,000 employees all the government needed was 740 million dollars or 1/10 of what was paid to GM to ensure employment for the people working at GM.

In other words, only 1/10 of the bail-out towards GM actually went to protecting the employees.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates
Member
Nov 14, 2007
332 posts
1 upvote
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:35 pm
It is ridiculous to claim that the actual populated areas in Ottawa have 1/10th the density of Toronto. .
First the numbers I gave are for city of Ottawa not Ottawa metro, second even if you only count Ottawa's urban core, it is still around third the density of Toronto.
Regardless a city is a city..... population density of a city is number of people that live in the city divided by the area of the city. You don't discount areas where not many people live there..... Toronto's density is calculated including the Don Valley and high park, you don't remove these areas just because nobody lives there.
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:35 pm
Etobicoke or Mississauga or North York has some high-rise stuff. But there are also tons of single-family dwellings. Try going further away from subway stations... most of the high-rise development has been around subway stations and major streets like Yonge/Bloor/Sheppard/etc.
Mississauga is a different city, and it has no subway.
Most of Etobicoke's high rise "stuff" is not near any subway, but rather near 427 and 401....
VivienM wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2009 6:35 pm
The type of home matters when it comes to density! Single-family detached houses will produce less density than townhouses, which are less dense than small apartment buildings, which are less dense than big high-rises.
The type of house does not matter because what matters are the density numbers. The difference townhouse and detached homes make on density are dwarfed by high rise effect on density. High rise is something that pretty much does not exist in London or Paris (Montparnasse doesn't count), so your argument is pretty weak. Numbers speak louder than any crazy theory.
Member
Nov 14, 2007
332 posts
1 upvote
Troodon wrote:
Sep 3rd, 2009 12:19 am
The entire subsidy to GM is about 7.4B. 7.4 billion dollars is enough to pay 148,000 people $10/hour, 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year for 25 years. In other words, if GM had only 14,000 employees all the government needed was 740 million dollars or 1/10 of what was paid to GM to ensure employment for the people working at GM.

In other words, only 1/10 of the bail-out towards GM actually went to protecting the employees.
Totally... And any employee would have been happy if the government cut a half million cheque to each employee and ask them to find another job..... but it's always better to give the money to a GM so they can come back and ask for more money later.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6602 posts
195 upvotes
Toronto, ON
albatman wrote:
Sep 3rd, 2009 2:31 am
The type of house does not matter because what matters are the density numbers. The difference townhouse and detached homes make on density are dwarfed by high rise effect on density. High rise is something that pretty much does not exist in London or Paris (Montparnasse doesn't count), so your argument is pretty weak. Numbers speak louder than any crazy theory.
But most of Paris, residential-housing-wise is apartments.... sure, maybe not 40-story apartment buildings, but apartments nonetheless. Lots of 5-6 story 1860s-era apartment buildings, and lots of taller, newer ones (15-20 stories maybe?).

How do you think they have the ability to sustain ~20 subway lines (while Toronto barely has 3) with hundreds of stations, if not by having higher density than most of Toronto?

Top