National Economy

[Innsertnamehere]

My grandfather and grandmother, who worked, raised 4 children in this house . He was a chemical engineer with a university degree in the 1960's and 1970's - it was a 3-bed, ~1,500sf home in what was a normally middle-class area at the time. They owned two modest cars, didn't really take vacations, didn't have large amounts of consumer spending, etc.. and that was on a university-educated factory floor manager's income with a two-income household.

It's now a fairly wealthy area of Scarborough, but things have changed over time and as I said, real estate is the one thing that has experienced real declines in the GTA and Vancouver specifically. That type of job and income setup today would be in a house twice the size, probably even in the GTA, with two luxury cars, large annual vacations, and a huge disposable income.

What was considered upper middle class back then, two cars and a mid-sized detached home and a small disposable income, is now achievable by most middle income households. Upper middle class incomes these days involve houses twice as large with luxury cars and huge disposable incomes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

My grandfather and grandmother, who worked, raised 4 children in this house . He was a chemical engineer with a university degree in the 1960's and 1970's - it was a 3-bed, ~1,500sf home in what was a normally middle-class area at the time. They owned two modest cars, didn't really take vacations, didn't have large amounts of consumer spending, etc.. and that was on a university-educated factory floor manager's income with a two-income household.

It's now a fairly wealthy area of Scarborough, but things have changed over time and as I said, real estate is the one thing that has experienced real declines in the GTA and Vancouver specifically. That type of job and income setup today would be in a house twice the size, probably even in the GTA, with two luxury cars, large annual vacations, and a huge disposable income.

I don't buy your assertions. Provide stats. If we're doing next by anecdotes I have plenty of family in the GTA with 1.5-2 incomes who are priced out and raising kids in apartments and condos. They aren't driving nice cars or taking European vacations. You're assertions would be ridiculously offensive to them. Just another variation of "avocado toast".

I think you're projecting your friends and family on to the median. And your friends and family have likely benefited from getting into the market substantially before the rocket up and/or from family wealth. These are not realities that are universally applicable.

Also, I like how your grandparents being able to own a 3 BDRM house in TTC range on one income is taken as a sign of frugal virtues while apparently the young couple that would need two full professional incomes and a substantial downpayment from their parents for that same house are the spoiled ones.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't buy your assertions. Provide stats. If we're doing next by anecdotes I have plenty of family in the GTA with 1.5-2 incomes who are priced out and raising kids in apartments and condos. They aren't driving nice cars or taking European vacations. You're assertions would be ridiculously offensive to them. Just another variation of "avocado toast".

I think you're projecting your friends and family on to the median. And your friends and family have likely benefited from getting into the market substantially before the rocket up and/or from family wealth. These are not realities that are universally applicable.

Also, I like how your grandparents being able to own a 3 BDRM house in TTC range on one income is taken as a sign of frugal virtues while apparently the young couple that would need two full professional incomes and a substantial downpayment from their parents for that same house are the spoiled ones.

You have to think of the era - in 1970 that house was on the edge of the GTA - equivalent to buying in Whitby or Georgetown today.

And as I have said multiple times - there have been real declines in housing affordability in the GTA and Vancouver. I'm not saying that's not true.

Where are you seeing people managing factory floors struggling to afford a detached home, especially outside of Toronto and Vancouver? This is middle-level management.

I sympathize with people trying to make it work in Toronto and Vancouver because real estate has become so out of whack.. but ultimately a detached home close to Downtown Toronto is just never going to be affordable as Toronto is a different city than it was in 1970 - but that's not to say the Canadian dream doesn't live on elsewhere.. indeed, in most of the country.

And yea - my grandparents are an anecdote.

Here are some fun graphs with actual data:

'

all the while..



I believe this is US, but it's similar in Canada:









This one shows maybe million people going to non-US destinations in 1970 - about one of every 21 Canadians. Compared to about 10 million in 2015 - one out of every 3.5 people in Canada at the time! International travel has increased about 600%..




etc., etc., etc.

[Truenorth00]

None of your stats speak to the picture you presented of most people having larger homes with nicer cars and expensive vacations. They speak to a bit less poverty and a bit more productivity.

Two of your stats are particularly misleading.

1) Number of tourists. Absolute numbers ignores population growth and the substantial numbers of immigrants who travel to the old country more.

2) Inflation adjusted wealth. Yes. We know that people are supposedly wealthier on average. Because if you own a detached home that you bought before 2010, you won the fucking lottery. That's not news. But that statistic ignores the wealth gap which is the crux of the debate today that you keep minimizing. This is classic mixing up mean and median.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

None of your stats speak to the picture you presented of people having larger homes with nicer cars and expensive vacations. They speak to a but less poverty and a bit more productivity.

Two of your stats are particularly misleading.

1) Number of tourists. Absolute numbers ignores population growth and the substantial numbers of immigrants who travel to the old country more.

2) Inflation adjusted wealth. Yes. We know that people are supposedly wealthier on average. Because if you own a detached home that you bought before 2010, you won the fucking lottery. That's not news. But that statistic ignores the wealth gap which is the crux of the debate today that you keep minimizing.

what do you mean?

I showed a graph showing larger average houses with smaller average household populations - the average house size doubled between 1970 and 2010, al the while household sizes shrunk by about 30%.

I showed a graph showing higher auto ownership rates - again, roughly doubling from 1970.

I showed a graph showing international travel increasing about 600% on a per-capita basis since 1970.

I showed a graph showing people work less and are wealthier - people's median wealth increased by about 300% between 1970 and 2012. And besides, even if it's mostly from real estate, it's still wealth people capitalize on and can use to progress their lives - and it's increased massively on a median basis. Or are we not talking about median Canadians any more and going back to anecdotal stories of people trying to buy detached homes in central Toronto on middle incomes?

I don't know what you expect.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

what do you mean? I showed a graph showing larger average houses with smaller average household populations. I showed a graph showing higher auto ownership rates. I showed a graph showing international travel increasing about 600% on a per-capita basis, I showed a graph showing people work less and are wealthier. I don't know what you expect.

Like I said difference between median and mean. My working class relatives would have had much higher quality of life for their labour in the 80s. But that's not captured in these stats because their smaller living space gets averaged out by their senior parents still living in the 3-4 bdrm house by themselves.

It's kind of missing the forest for the trees. And honestly, a bit offensive. When I read dismissive posts like these, I totally get the disdain that the working class has for the professional and pundit class today.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

My grandfather and grandmother, who worked, raised 4 children in this house . He was a chemical engineer with a university degree in the 1960's and 1970's - it was a 3-bed, ~1,500sf home in what was a normally middle-class area at the time. They owned two modest cars, didn't really take vacations, didn't have large amounts of consumer spending, etc.. and that was on a university-educated factory floor manager's income with a two-income household.

It's now a fairly wealthy area of Scarborough, but things have changed over time and as I said, real estate is the one thing that has experienced real declines in the GTA and Vancouver specifically. That type of job and income setup today would be in a house twice the size, probably even in the GTA, with two luxury cars, large annual vacations, and a huge disposable income.

What was considered upper middle class back then, two cars and a mid-sized detached home and a small disposable income, is now achievable by most middle income households. Upper middle class incomes these days involve houses twice as large with luxury cars and huge disposable incomes.

1) A chemical engineer is not a "median" job, it is probably double the median income.

2) There is no way a chemical engineer with a working spouse and 4 kids in Scarborough would be able to afford the lifestyle your grandparents had, let alone the luxurious modern lifestyle you say people have.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I said difference between median and mean. My working class relatives would have had much higher quality of life for their labour in the 80s. But that's not captured in these stats because their smaller living space gets averaged out by their senior parents still living in the 3-4 bdrm house by themselves.

It's kind of missing the forest for the trees.

To me it sounds like you are discussing the trees and missing the forest.

Maybe they would have - maybe they wouldn't have. Each individual situation varies massively by individual situation. Using data however we can look at what kind of life the typical Canadian experiences, and it is significantly better today in basically every metric (other than real estate in TO/VAN).

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1) A chemical engineer is not a "median" job, it is probably double the median income.

2) There is no way a chemical engineer with a working spouse and 4 kids in Scarborough would be able to afford the lifestyle your grandparents had, let alone the luxurious modern lifestyle you say people have.

yes - my point was that double median income got something relatively modest in 1970 compared to current standards, and that job would get you a whole lot more than that today.

That type of job in the GTA likely wouldn't be living in Scarborough either, and if they did, it would yes likely be fairly modest - but I've never disputed real estate affordability issues in the GTA.

If you look a bit further afield though, there are hundreds and thousands of households like that living much larger lives in homes in Milton, Oakville, Whitby, Newmarket, etc. today.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

To me it sounds like you are discussing the trees and missing the forest.

Maybe they would have - maybe they wouldn't have. Each individual situation varies massively by individual situation. Using data however we can look at what kind of life the typical Canadian experiences, and it is significantly better today in basically every metric (other than real estate in TO/VAN).

1) "Other than real estate". If we ignore the largest mandatory expense most people have, everything is just fine. Jeez ....

2) It's not just Toronto and Vancouver. Other cities were late to the party. But affordability is a national problem now. But also, even if it were just TO and Van, given the proportion of Canada's population those two metros, that is not a small matter.

[Acajack]

But we have amazing smartphones today and a one-week all-inclusive to Punta Cana has never more affordable!

[goodgrowth]

Examples that show the deflationary effects of tech and consumer goods that have made people better off just prove we need to make housing act more like a consumption good and less like an asset.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But we have amazing smartphones today and a one-week all-inclusive to Punta Cana has never more affordable!

Literally what he's arguing.....

But also, apparently I should be grateful for being statistically richer, because my dad drives a Lexus and my parents have three empty bedrooms in their house.

I abhor Trumpism. But whenever I hear arguments like this, I totally get where the sentiment comes from.

[thewave46]

This is sort of the crux of it though.

The 'better' and 'worse' elements are diverging. The extremes being Toronto and Vancouver where one gets million-dollar properties and tent cities in the same city. The threads are showing where they didn't before now, as smaller cities in Canada are experiencing it too.

The 'better' rode the housing wave. So, they got to ride the property appreciation wave and lived high for a couple of decades. Toronto Life Guy is the premier example. Bought cheap, racked up huge debt on appreciating asset, ended up with seven-figure payout when he cashed out. He had the audacity to mope about it, too.

With cheap flying, those people could take yearly vacations. They are also the larger portion of the population, so they're going to drive spending patterns.

If you're on the worse side of the argument, it's cold comfort that the average moved up if you're left behind. The problem being that the 'worse' side is becoming larger and more entrenched. If you're young, you can put off having family, accept that either one is tied to a rental because moving means higher rent, and that a house is just a dream. Except time doesn't stand still.

The problem isn't the average per se, it's the winner/loser dichotomy. At least with essentials (food/housing) being cheaper the overall average wealth is lower, but the winner/loser dichotomy is mitigated. Sure, fancy vacations are out, but you can at least buy a house and raise a family.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) "Other than real estate". If we ignore the largest mandatory expense most people have, everything is just fine. Jeez ....

2) It's not just Toronto and Vancouver. Other cities were late to the party. But affordability is a national problem now. But also, even if it were just TO and Van, given the proportion of Canada's population those two metros, that is not a small matter.

*other than real estate in about 15% of the country.

The other 85% is a different story - and I've provided data showing this.

You know from other threads on my opinion on the issues with housing in the GTA - I know it's a problem, and a big one at that.

My point here is that for most Canadians, especially those outside of TO/VAN, they work less, are wealthier, and buy products and services which are cheaper than ever, including real estate. We can talk about "ooh smartphones" as if they are empty promises which mean nothing to hand-wave it away, but the initial question was "do people live better lives than in the past" - and the answer is undoubtably yes, with one caveat that effects maybe 15-20% of Canada's population.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

yes - my point was that double median income got something relatively modest in 1970 compared to current standards, and that job would get you a whole lot more than that today.

That type of job in the GTA likely wouldn't be living in Scarborough either, and if they did, it would yes likely be fairly modest - but I've never disputed real estate affordability issues in the GTA.

If you look a bit further afield though, there are hundreds and thousands of households like that living much larger lives in homes in Milton, Oakville, Whitby, Newmarket, etc. today.

A detached 3 bedroom home in Whitby that is slightly larger than your Grandfather's lists for 1.1 million. A mortgage runs around 5%. Interest alone is going to run 40-50k per year. A chemical engineer with a working spouse and kids would struggle to pay that mortgage. They certainly wouldn't have vacation money.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...-rolling-acres

Are there boomers and Gen X people who bought property in the 90s and 00s who are living it up? Absolutely. Is that a feasible lifestyle for somebody not well along the property ladder? NFW.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Literally what he's arguing.....

But also, apparently I should be grateful for being statistically richer, because my dad drives a Lexus and my parents have three empty bedrooms in their house.

I abhor Trumpism. But whenever I hear arguments like this, I totally get where the sentiment comes from.

And of course both smartphone affordability and cheap all-inclusives don't have much to do with Canadian wealth growing awesomely, as they are both leveraged against way lower offshore costs: production in the case of phones and local resourcing in the case of Punta Cana.

Even migrants walking from the Middle East all had smartphones, and middle class people from middle income countries in central and eastern Europe and South America vacation in the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Mexico.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A detached 3 bedroom home in Whitby that is slightly larger than your Grandfather's lists for 1.1 million. A mortgage runs around 5%. Interest alone is going to run 40-50k per year. A chemical engineer with a working spouse and kids would struggle to pay that mortgage. They certainly wouldn't have vacation money.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...-rolling-acres

Are there boomers and Gen X people who bought property in the 90s and 00s who are living it up? Absolutely. Is that a feasible lifestyle for somebody not well along the property ladder? NFW.

a floor-manager chemical engineer in his 40's with a working spouse on average could definitely afford $1.1 million. They would have 10-15 years of house equity built up at that point to put towards the mortgage. Ain't nobody going out and buying an upper-middle class home as their first property - that's the case today and it was the case back then.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

*other than real estate in about 15% of the country.

The other 85% is a different story - and I've provided data showing this.

Yeah, but people for the most part still need jobs. With a few exceptions job openings are concentrated in the larger population centres where real estate has blown up.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A detached 3 bedroom home in Whitby that is slightly larger than your Grandfather's lists for 1.1 million. A mortgage runs around 5%. Interest alone is going to run 40-50k per year. A chemical engineer with a working spouse and kids would struggle to pay that mortgage. They certainly wouldn't have vacation money.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...-rolling-acres

Are there boomers and Gen X people who bought property in the 90s and 00s who are living it up? Absolutely. Is that a feasible lifestyle for somebody not well along the property ladder? NFW.

This is exactly it.

I guess we'll just have to wait a decade for younger Millennials and Zoomers to bring down statistical averages before people can actually admit we have a problem.