Too bad majority of the population couldn’t do a own vs rent scenario if their lives depended on it.
Even if the price-to-rent ratio was 300 they would still see renting as throwing money away or “paying someone else’s mortgage”.
On well, knowledge is power and to each his own!
Onward!

@chilled: “Keep a close eye on the silverware”

Wooden bowls will fuck you over at every opportunity! Bastards!

@Anonymous:
This is not related to RE but since you ask the question…

It is reasonable to assume that if a country gives lots of incentives to women to have babies (generous mat leave, easy access to daycare, non discrimination policies, child allowance, etc), women will tend to have ore babies. Obviously, there are more influencing factors (such as religion for example).

OK, enough of this discussion, back to RE 🙂

I know 3 families who used to give me a “sorry” look because we rent while they own. They just “lost” roughly $150 000 in the last 12 months (10% drop). Ahhhhh… no more real estate talk when I will invite them for dinner. What a breather!!!

@Anonymous: US has hispanics and mormons.

@Makaya:

Where’s the USA fit in your list? Welfare state about the same size as Canada (in terms of % of GDP), yet a birth rate similar to France.

Here’s a real world data point for The Province article:
6285 CHARLES ST, Sold March 2012 $1,173,000

Recently spotted on Craigslist for $2500 / month. http://tinyurl.com/bpcowa4

price:rent – 39.1

@Makaya:

““Singapore has a non- replacement birth rate” & “Very little welfare state here”
I see cause and effect here…”

So a welfare state leads to a higher birth rate or something, except that everywhere in the world a large welfare state corresponds with low birth rates.

Everything you write is just muddled nonsense.

Opss Honk Kong down 2.5% overnight…looks like the smelly stuff is hitting the fan

@jesse: “Sorry, but the data support prices increasing above inflation due to changing density norms.”

The steady decline of interest rates is the only thing responsible for increases above inflation. Here is the data:

http://www.multpl.com/case-shiller-home-price-index-inflation-adjusted/

if DOW and TSX deflate just 10% within next month RE market would be in 2008 mode right away.

I figure sales mix could show a 15-20% decline by late fall, although this will not be an accurate read of things. My guess is a true 10% decline by year end, but the big show will not unfold until we see some interest rate hikes.

Stick that in your noggin.

comment on Globe and Mail

“”Not everyone is convinced there’s a housing bubble. Economic fundamentals are driving activity and prices, and many markets are still undersupplied, said Peter Norman, chief economist at Altus Group.

He points to an improving labour market, low interest rates, population growth and pent-up demand from the recession as driving activity. “I wouldn’t say it’s out of control but it certainly indicates strengthening demand in a relatively supply-constrained market,” he said.

Even in Toronto, where talk of a bubble is most concentrated, rising prices simply reflect population growth of about 100,000 people a year in a city where “severe land constraints” are limiting the ability to build single homes, he said.”

IF HIGH HOUSING PRICES ARE BASED ON STRONG ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS THEN REMIND ME AGAIN WHY WE NEED EMERGENCY LOW INTEREST RATES???”

testing..can’t seem to post

@jesse: “Underused property will increase faster than inflation and areas with constrained land supply will do the same, and that goes for Vancouver in spades. Sorry, but it is a fair point.”

Wrong. Underused property has a premium already priced in. If you can build a larger house on a lot, subdivide or what ever that premium is already built in at market price. What Tsur was talking about is property values increasing above inflation justifying paying a premium over renting. Isn’t going to happen over the long term. Tsur Sommerville is nothing more than an industry shill.