HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 4:59 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,147
^

I think the real difference is the cost of housing and cars/gas. I think my grandparents’ starter home in 1947, in what we would now call an exurb, was 2000, which is 34,000 in current dollars. My parents bought a brand new 3 bedroom suburban house in 1981 for 80,000, a little over 200k in current dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 5:26 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 12,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny24 View Post
Old man yells at clouds vibe here.

The earth doesn't need more people. Canada needs to learn to "live within its means" of its population, the same way I need to live within my salary and not rely on a massive raise every year to sustain myself.
You need that "massive" raise just to stay ahead of inflation. The earth doesn't actually need more people, but population factors into the global balance of power, economic dominance and competitiveness, and sustainability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Kids really get in the way of vacations and instragramming.
Not to those who delight in using their kids and even grandkids as their avatars and favorite subject matter content, and what better excuse for a vacation than to do it for the kids?.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 1:38 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
^

I think the real difference is the cost of housing and cars/gas. I think my grandparents’ starter home in 1947, in what we would now call an exurb, was 2000, which is 34,000 in current dollars. My parents bought a brand new 3 bedroom suburban house in 1981 for 80,000, a little over 200k in current dollars.
I don't think cars and gas are that different when you adjust for inflation. Especially when you factor in tech, safety and fuel efficiency. Gas itself is probably slightly deflationary.

Housing though is absolutely outpacing inflation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 1:42 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,664
Housing is basically the only good which has outpaced inflation. People either spend way less on items today or buy far more expensive versions than they did back then - food, clothes, furniture, etc are far smaller portions of people’s budgets these days. For cars, people spend similar amounts, but the cars they drive are far larger and more complex than in the past.

Part of it is much higher housing standards today coming from larger average dwelling sizes, lower occupancy rates in housing, higher build qualities (a 1950’s home would have been built extremely cheaply by todays standards and would be nowhere close to even being code compliant), but there is real cost increases too, particularly in supply constrained markets.

Places like Edmonton have real estate costs being roughly equal to what they were back in the day. Somewhere like Vancouver or Toronto are extremely supply constrained which has caused housing prices to skyrocket.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 5:08 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 45,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
^

I think the real difference is the cost of housing and cars/gas. I think my grandparents’ starter home in 1947, in what we would now call an exurb, was 2000, which is 34,000 in current dollars. My parents bought a brand new 3 bedroom suburban house in 1981 for 80,000, a little over 200k in current dollars.
I sold my great uncle's house (starter house in NGD, Montreal) in 2021, for 550,000. I uncovered the original deed for the house purchase in 1951, which was $4500.

There are a lot of reasons why housing has outpaced inflation for decades. Regulations/red tape, house size/features/fixtures/inputs, and inadequate supply relative to population growth being among them. Perhaps speculation is one of the biggest factors, which does not get nearly enough attention.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 6:27 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Regulations/red tape, house size/features/fixtures/inputs, and inadequate supply relative to population growth being among them. Perhaps speculation is one of the biggest factors, which does not get nearly enough attention.
It will depend on the market but I'd guess that house sizes are shrinking in Canada in the 2020's. Construction seems to have shifted toward apartments/condos.

The quality of a lot of new and expensive condos around here is mediocre and older housing stock tends to hold its value (for houses almost all the value is in the land itself, not improvements; the assessed land value is a large portion of the total even for condos in Vancouver). I wouldn't trade my basic 2000's unit for the brand new units nearby that on paper have nicer finishes.

One factor I notice is it gets slower and slower to get around the city, and there isn't much in the way of major transportation projects truly adding attractive travel options. There are some good projects like the Broadway line but that was approved in 2018, won't open until 2026, and is only about 6 km long. Meanwhile the city is growing at around 3% per year. The SkyTrain itself has scaling issues with increasingly long lines with many stops and no express options. There's almost no road/bridge/tunnel development of note.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2024, 7:37 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Housing is basically the only good which has outpaced inflation. People either spend way less on items today or buy far more expensive versions than they did back then - food, clothes, furniture, etc are far smaller portions of people’s budgets these days. For cars, people spend similar amounts, but the cars they drive are far larger and more complex than in the past.

Part of it is much higher housing standards today coming from larger average dwelling sizes, lower occupancy rates in housing, higher build qualities (a 1950’s home would have been built extremely cheaply by todays standards and would be nowhere close to even being code compliant), but there is real cost increases too, particularly in supply constrained markets.

Places like Edmonton have real estate costs being roughly equal to what they were back in the day. Somewhere like Vancouver or Toronto are extremely supply constrained which has caused housing prices to skyrocket.
Shelter costs have far outpaced inflation, particularly since the early 2000s. In the early 90s a typical one bedroom in West End Vancouver would rent for in the $500s. Adjusted for inflation the midpoint of $550 is $1061 in 2024 dollars. Well over double that today, perhaps even triple. This is why ads for hotbedding and looking for a 4th roommate for a one bedroom exist. Plus, almost all rentals included utilities except of course phone and cable. Many rentals now do not. Housing appreciation varies by region, but it has occurred everywhere in the country, but again it really started in the early 2000s. In some markets, like the GTA, housing in the early 2000s had just recovered to its late 80s values. Other markets were more stable.

The average household income in Canada in 2023 was $75,452 so multiply that by 3 (ie. mortgage affordability) and the result is $226,356. No major city in the country has house prices this low. Some rural areas might, but the problem is well-paying employment is exceedingly difficult to find in these areas. It was really quite unthinkable for most in the 1980s to still live at home by the time they reached their mid 20s. It was considered even a bit "weird". Some did obviously, esp. those in university, but certainly most of my peers were out not long after they turned 20. If you worked full time you could afford your own place, or you shared a house with a couple of roommates.

Don't think for a minute though that all people in their 50s and 60s are sitting pretty. I know many that have no savings, no employment pension plans to look forward to and substantial debt. I know many people who are in their late 60s and even 70s who are still working because they can't afford not to. So for the younger two generations it seems impossible for most, unless you have family that can help out, but many just aren't in the position to give their kids a down payment for a house, and nor can many kids expect any inheritance.

I disagree with you about build quality. While they may not be up to "code" or as energy efficient in many cases, the ubiquitous in suburban Canada 50s/60s ranchers have a far better build quality than the typical new home. I've talked with many builders who tell me that new builds are junk, ply board, covered with synthetic polyethylene insulation and then topped with vinyl siding. Vinyl windows. New apartment blocks are also of poor build quality compared with the concrete blocks of the 60s and 70s (outdoor pools were more common then too, but I suppose insurance and maintenance concerns) and even those three story walk up brick buildings from the 50s. Again, I am referring to average dwellings, not high end multi million dollar condos.

Compared with the 1980s, there have been marked decreases in prices for some items such as appliances, furniture and clothing. I'm referring to what the average people might buy, not high end. A washer/dryer pair in early 80s ran about $1000, not significantly less than now in-non inflation adjusted dollars. We'll save the arguments regarding efficiency and longevity for now, but suffice to say, when people bought a w/d they could reasonably expect 25 years of service. A pair of Levi's jeans were about $50 then and close to the same now. Electronics are much less expensive now. A TV was $500-700 in the early 80s depending on size (26" was a big screen) and a microwave oven was similarly priced This is about $2000 in today's dollars.

I think food is more expensive adjusted for inflation, esp. meat (except pork) and fruits and vegetables. I was shopping earlier this week and plums were $11/kg. Chicken is also outrageously expensive, we used to think of legs and thighs as "poor" food. . Restaurant meals are also more expensive, I can well remember $1.99 breakfast specials in the 90s, earlier this week it cost me $18 for a basic breakfast with coffee incl. taxes and tip. Again, I'm talking a very average diner, good but nothing fancy.

Vehicles are relatively more expensive, but the market is dramatically changed. Most new vehicle sales now are light trucks (incl. SUVs/crossovers). In the past they were mainly sedans and coupes. Vehicles are heavier now and better equipped. Most vehicles into the 80s in Canada had manual windows and did not have a/c. Power steering was still an option on lower end cars. I don't think there are any vehicles now that do not have these features. They are also safer and last longer. If you maintain a vehicle you should get at least 15-20 years out of it if you want to keep it compared with 10-12 years for the 70s and 80s vehicles. As for styling or interior design, that is subjective.

Gas prices have fluctuated dramatically over the years. Adjusted for inflation they were less expensive in the 60s and early 70s but spiked dramatically starting in 1973-74, which led to the downsizing (and power cuts) of vehicles for the next decade at least. Gas prices also vary by region, but on the Prairies in the mid to late 80s, gas was $0.399 to $0.499/L or $1.06 in 2024 dollars. Gas spiked in 1990 to over 70c due to the Gulf War or about $1.50 today, then declined and stayed mostly low for the rest of the 90s. I paid $1.179 at Shell on Monday, so prices are within the 80s-90s averages. Gas prices have been highly volatile in recent years, being well under $1 in 2020 and well over (at times) $2 in 2022.

After tremendous gains in the 50s and 60s, household incomes adjusted for inflation have been largely flat for close to half a century. Upper income earners, the professions and upper managerial occupations, have done well, but blue collar workers have seen wages decline. Anecdotally I can tell you that in 1980-81 my brother-in-law was making $11/hr as a milkman (That sounds so funny, a milkman, $40 now) and in the late 80s my friend was making about $20/hr working at Molson's ($43 now).

In my opinion the past few decades have been particularly hard on the working class (ie. the 3rd and 4th quintiles) and the degree of wealth inequality in this country is unacceptable. The first quintile are doing much better, the second likely a bit better, esp. those who bought houses years ago, the so called "paper millionaires" and the fifth, well, they were poor then and are poor now. Also anecdotally, it may just have been the fact that I was unaware, but I don't remember food banks in the 70s or 80s and nor do I remember homeless people. There were always skid rows in Canadian cities but nothing even close to what you see now in the Downtown East Side of Vancouver for example. Yes, I know that there are other reasons beyond just wages and housing costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2024, 4:45 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman23 View Post
I was going to call it an avocado toast vibe.
Lol it was tongue in cheek old man. I don't care what people do with their lives. The planet already has too many people, no need to keep growing the population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2024, 7:42 PM
Nite's Avatar
Nite Nite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
When you can't have children or have any heirs in your entire family, you suddenly DGAF about fertility rates.

A real simple solution, much less harmful to society and the environment than mass immigration, is $100-200k to every Canadian family with 4+ children, depending on family income.
If you have 4 children the Canadian government currently givers you $460,000 ($2,255 per month) for a family income under 34k a year which diminishes at higher income but will around $300,000 ($1,500 per month) for a family income of 90K via Canada Child Benefit.

PS daycare is free in Toronto if the family income is below $20,000 and scales upto $5 for family income at $34,000 and more with greater income. The number of kids you have in daycare doesn't matter. if you have 1 kid or 4 kids and your income is $34K the total you pay is $5 a day

Last edited by Nite; Mar 3, 2024 at 8:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2024, 8:03 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Lol it was tongue in cheek old man. I don't care what people do with their lives. The planet already has too many people, no need to keep growing the population.
No need for you to be terribly worried. World population growth has dramatically slowed. Save for migration, it is negative in North America, South America, Europe, South Asia and East Asia. The two centuries of population explosion are over.

Only 8 Latin American countries have TFRs above 2.1 (replacement), the highest being Bolivia at 2.5. All save Venezuela are smaller countries and are more than offset by the big four, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Argentina (1.6 to 1.9).

China, Japan, S. Korea and Thailand, already facing a demographic bomb, are heading for future collapse with TFRs ranging from 0.9 to 1.3.

The only natural population growth is occurring in Africa, some of the Middle East and the Stans (also some of the Pacific Island nations, which have very small populations to begin with). Nigeria has 230 million in the area of B.C. and a TFR of 5.1. There are encouraging signs though as countries such as Egypt and South Africa have reduced population growth to just above replacement, which implies that the high growth countries may achieve the same over the coming decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2024, 8:14 PM
Nite's Avatar
Nite Nite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Kids really get in the way of vacations and instragramming.
It's socially acceptable to blame cost of living why a couple isn't have kids.
and socially unacceptable to say they want to spend the money on themselves and vacations and have a more materialistic lifestyle is why they aren't having kids
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2024, 11:08 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,889
Here is the catch 22 though when a population collapses: quality of life will greatly diminish and economic systems will collapse (of all forms), which will lead to far greater political instability, which means war and famine will be far more likely to occur, which means people will be far far far less likely to care about such things as the environment, sustainable energy, and the protection of animals.

In the end, a population free fall will likely end up being worse for the environment than a stable or slightly increasing population scenario.

That’s not to mention the cultural losses.

I just saw that Seoul metro region in South Korea has by far the world’s lowest birth rate at 0.38 children per woman… that is an insanely troubling statistic, we may see South Korea completely implode in our lifetimes.

On the bright side at least there will be no more cringe K-Pop boy bands.

On the very bad side that means the near disappearance of gorgeous Korean women…
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 12:37 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Here is the catch 22 though when a population collapses: quality of life will greatly diminish and economic systems will collapse (of all forms), which will lead to far greater political instability, which means war and famine will be far more likely to occur, which means people will be far far far less likely to care about such things as the environment, sustainable energy, and the protection of animals.

In the end, a population free fall will likely end up being worse for the environment than a stable or slightly increasing population scenario.

That’s not to mention the cultural losses.

I just saw that Seoul metro region in South Korea has by far the world’s lowest birth rate at 0.38 children per woman… that is an insanely troubling statistic, we may see South Korea completely implode in our lifetimes.

On the bright side at least there will be no more cringe K-Pop boy bands.

On the very bad side that means the near disappearance of gorgeous Korean women…
I think that's the worst possible outcome, but not the most likely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 2:46 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Here is the catch 22 though when a population collapses: quality of life will greatly diminish and economic systems will collapse (of all forms), which will lead to far greater political instability, which means war and famine will be far more likely to occur, which means people will be far far far less likely to care about such things as the environment, sustainable energy, and the protection of animals.

In the end, a population free fall will likely end up being worse for the environment than a stable or slightly increasing population scenario.

That’s not to mention the cultural losses.

I just saw that Seoul metro region in South Korea has by far the world’s lowest birth rate at 0.38 children per woman… that is an insanely troubling statistic, we may see South Korea completely implode in our lifetimes.

On the bright side at least there will be no more cringe K-Pop boy bands.

On the very bad side that means the near disappearance of gorgeous Korean women…
It is hard to tell. Such a huge portion of the population does jobs that are more or less optional (i.e. society would not really be affected if nobody was doing that job). 1980s Canada functioned as a fairly modern economy with 25 million for example.

That being said, we might lose the people who keep the power on and keep the imstagramers, in which case your scenario might play out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 11:18 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 68,271
. Also anecdotally, it may just have been the fact that I was unaware, but I don't remember food banks in the 70s or 80s and nor do I remember homeless people. There were always skid rows in Canadian cities but nothing even close to what you see now in the Downtown East Side of Vancouver for example. Yes, I know that there are other reasons beyond just wages and housing costs.[/QUOTE]

There were definitely food banks and homeless people in the 80s. In the major cities for sure but in numbers way less than today. Smaller cities like Moncton didn't have highly visible numbers of homeless people back then. It would have been extremely rare even in cities the size of Halifax.
__________________
The Last Word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 11:19 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 68,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
It is hard to tell. Such a huge portion of the population does jobs that are more or less optional (i.e. society would not really be affected if nobody was doing that job). 1980s Canada functioned as a fairly modern economy with 25 million for example.

That being said, we might lose the people who keep the power on and keep the imstagramers, in which case your scenario might play out.
I guess the hope is that the scarcity of people able to keep the power on will make those jobs better paid and lure people away from being influencers online.
__________________
The Last Word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 2:25 PM
jonny24 jonny24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Hamilton, formerly Norfolk County
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Lol it was tongue in cheek old man. I don't care what people do with their lives. The planet already has too many people, no need to keep growing the population.
Getting hard to tell who's kidding and who actually means it with the responses in here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 2:34 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
It is hard to tell. Such a huge portion of the population does jobs that are more or less optional (i.e. society would not really be affected if nobody was doing that job). 1980s Canada functioned as a fairly modern economy with 25 million for example.

That being said, we might lose the people who keep the power on and keep the imstagramers, in which case your scenario might play out.
Most of the useless jobs aren't things like Instagrammers (these are useless jobs too, but only a tiny minority of people can eke out even a middle class living off social media), but a lot of corporate white collar work. Also many white collar government and institutional jobs, as opposed to front-line service workers in these fields. The fact that the Federal civil service grew by 20% or more since Covid with no appreciable gains in efficiency or any sense that things are running any better suggests that many of these jobs are basically just sinecures.

I have this theory that there will be push factors and pull factors that will lead a lot of millennials to exit the white collar workforce in their late 40s and early 50s and maybe pursue more "salt of the earth" type, traditional jobs where the value of what your job does for society is more tangible.

The push is that I think a lot of that kind of work can be replaced by AI, or simply better process automation. Every Canadian company I've worked for has an army of people who manually move data around or build simple spreadsheets for higher-ups on request. It seems like they're just temporary workarounds for legacy databases that were built up to 20 years ago, and the world has moved on.

The pull is that millennials are a more idealistic generation than previous ones, and they're more sensitive to things like alienation from work. Many of them chose corporate, white collar work rather than lower paying, more societally "valuable" jobs since they needed money. In middle age, they'll still need money, but many of them won't be in quite the dire straits they were in, say, 2009. A lot of them will inherit money from dying parents which gives them some financial padding. They'll also be in the midst of midlife crises where they have to redefine who they are. In the past, they took white collar jobs because they felt that, being an educated- almost overeducated - generation, they needed to uphold their status by taking white collar jobs that, at least on paper, require university. More than twenty years after graduating, the need to prove one's self kind of fades away. I can see a lot of them jumping ship from corporate jobs with made-up titles to fill needed roles in more hands-on labour that's needed for society to function.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 3:05 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,113
In contrast to the Feds I believe that employment in the Ontario Public Service has remained more or less stable if not slightly decreased over the past decade (speaking about direct line Minstries / agencies, not broader public sector). Meanwhile the population of Ontario has surged. In my close to 15 years here I've seen a lot of admin/support positions slowly disappear - usually through attrition but they aren't replaced. A small division like the one I'm in (~60 people) used to have 5+ admins - now we have 2. Efficiency has also improved a lot even during the time I've been here - we are a pretty technical policy area and things are increasingly automated through creation of new scripts/templates, etc. It's meant that we've actually been able to take on a lot more with the same staffing level.

Granted the downside of this is that the people at higher levels are increasingly burnt out due to the sheer amount of stuff that's going on at any given time. "AI" and increased automation has the potential to positively affect a lot of "email jobs", but we also need to be wary that we aren't just shifting the former work of a team on to a single person.

The areas that are most at risk from potential demographic changes are related to long-term care IMO. Right now a lot of these jobs suck and people don't want to do them.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2024, 3:38 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,223
Society and the education system overpriotized and oversupplied certain skillsets that re-oriented a large part of the labour force and economy to be process-focused.

This is sort my theory as to why it's harder to build things these days. You have a lot of (well-paying) livelihoods that are tied up more in the process of things and not necessarily the outcome of things.

Why was it easier to build a railroad 100 years ago? Probably because the labour force was much more blue collar. So the incentive to physically build is larger. What's incentivized with a white collar labour force?(assessments, studies, consultations, communications, meetings, emails etc)....

I'm not saying analyzing things is bad...but it is over incentivized with todays labour force.

Do you think something like the Empire State Building get's built in a little over a year today? Not likely. Or something like the Golden Gate Bridge in a little over 4 years? Doubtful.

I suspect this theory also somewhat applies to China. The ratio of BA's and business degrees in the labour force is smaller than western countries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.