Chicken. Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 1 hour ago, Sapper said: I still have issue with this What first time buyer has that much in RRSP's or can afford a brand new build houses mortgage payments at all ? He'll who as a first time home.buyer jumps in for their first with a brand new house ? We actually have a solution but governments lack the balls to actually do it as it takes the profit from developers who financially back both sides If I could be the housing minister for one day I'd pass a law that every community needs to provide freehold land designated as modular housing land. The land could not be sold as builders terms. Just legislate that the modular home needs to be either new or restored as new on placement Families and seniors could then purchase small lots around 250k and for another 200 to 250k have a new modular set up ..... In some areas of Canada the land might only be 10k This would give people affordable housing that is fully mortgage qualifying and no strata fees.... Definitely a bit of a nothingburger imo as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 LMFAO. Like a first time homebuyer has $60k in their RRSP. And only on newly built homes? Which first time homebuyer with a $60k downpayment can afford to buy a newly built home? What a nothingburger. I can see the attacks on this already from PP. Trudeau literally just scripted his new campaign ad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: LMFAO. Like a first time homebuyer has $60k in their RRSP. And only on newly built homes? Which first time homebuyer with a $60k downpayment can afford to buy a newly built home? What a nothingburger. I can see the attacks on this already from PP. Trudeau literally just scripted his new campaign ad... They both wear this .... PP also is focusing on the rich because all of those new homes he is selling are builders terms and at the highest price If anything the NDP should run an add showcasing both Trudeau and PP are only focusing on the rich Both parties have plans that make federal funding contingent on new builds only which again pushes prices higher and further out of reach Sure they both use the trickle.down theory that richer older home owners will sell to upgrade thus putting their less pricy homes on the market In reality if the prices drop for their old homes it's the developers that pick up all of them and make them rentals until they are ready to tear down and build In the Fraser Valley the old homes sell for near the same or more then new ..... New builds are going on 33x120 lots and old homes.are 66x120 and the subdividable lots make them the same price Both parties get an F on their housing plans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Sapper said: They both wear this .... PP also is focusing on the rich because all of those new homes he is selling are builders terms and at the highest price If anything the NDP should run an add showcasing both Trudeau and PP are only focusing on the rich Both parties have plans that make federal funding contingent on new builds only which again pushes prices higher and further out of reach Sure they both use the trickle.down theory that richer older home owners will sell to upgrade thus putting their less pricy homes on the market In reality if the prices drop for their old homes it's the developers that pick up all of them and make them rentals until they are ready to tear down and build In the Fraser Valley the old homes sell for near the same or more then new ..... New builds are going on 33x120 lots and old homes.are 66x120 and the subdividable lots make them the same price Both parties get an F on their housing plans PP isn't selling anything. He isn't the Prime Minister. Whatever is happening now and for the last 8 years is on the Liberal government. At the end of the day, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of building homes anyways. The main reason house prices have risen exponentially is because of a lack of supply and artificially low interest rates for the last 10+ years. The federal government had a chance to do something in this year's budget to help first time homebuyers. They get a big F if this is all they got. It's a joke really. PP is already starting his campaign ads. As for the Fraser Valley, you can't just subdivide any lot. It doesn't work that way. You have to be in areas where the zoning allows that. Also, $1.8 million for a new build in Surrey on a 33' lot isn't cheap. How the heck is a first time home buyer supposed to afford that? They literally have to move to Chilliwack if they want to buy a detached home. Even then it's almost impossible... Edited April 11 by Elias Pettersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sapper said: I still have issue with this What first time buyer has that much in RRSP's or can afford a brand new build houses mortgage payments at all ? He'll who as a first time home.buyer jumps in for their first with a brand new house ? We actually have a solution but governments lack the balls to actually do it as it takes the profit from developers who financially back both sides If I could be the housing minister for one day I'd pass a law that every community needs to provide freehold land designated as modular housing land. The land could not be sold as builders terms. Just legislate that the modular home needs to be either new or restored as new on placement Families and seniors could then purchase small lots around 250k and for another 200 to 250k have a new modular set up ..... In some areas of Canada the land might only be 10k This would give people affordable housing that is fully mortgage qualifying and no strata fees.... If you're an older millennial who's been working at a decent gig at a big company like Hydro or other large private firms that match contributions, yeah there could be a fair number of folks that could use the RRSP thing. Even if you don't max out the 60k, you'd certainly have something to take out. Now do this for professional couples and you're getting somewhere. My niece and her fiancé are renting right now for $3,600 per month, they'd benefit a lot from this program. Edited April 11 by Bob Long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 33 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: PP isn't selling anything. He isn't the Prime Minister. Whatever is happening now and for the last 8 years is on the Liberal government. At the end of the day, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of building homes anyways. The main reason house prices have risen exponentially is because of a lack of supply and artificially low interest rates for the last 10+ years. The federal government had a chance to do something in this year's budget to help first time homebuyers. They get a big F if this is all they got. It's a joke really. PP is already starting his campaign ads. As for the Fraser Valley, you can't just subdivide any lot. It doesn't work that way. You have to be in areas where the zoning allows that. Also, $1.8 million for a new build in Surrey on a 33' lot isn't cheap. How the heck is a first time home buyer supposed to afford that? They literally have to move to Chilliwack if they want to buy a detached home. Even then it's almost impossible. Chilliwack will cost you 800k for a fixer upper on a 66x120 lot. New builds are on 33x120 lots and run 1.1 million right now Every lot 66' and wider is eligible to be subdivided into 2 lots in Chilliwack. The vast majority of older homes are being bought my developers who suite them and rent them out till they are ready to tear down and build 2 new houses. As an added bonus most of those renters are causing values to drop as the neighborhood gets turned into a gehtto and the developers get to buy a few more lots to make more ( that's another whole issue ) Want a good older house on a 66 foot lot they start at 875k And your giving PP a free pass - why ? If it's wrong for the liberals it should be wrong for him PP has been campaigning in his housing plan to attach federal dollars to conditions that local governments approve new builds and denser zoning etc. The conservatives cheered this Trudeau copy cats it in this budget and now Alberta is moving a law to get around it ... They were fine if PP does it but only for him PP also has stated that if elected a single.mother with ONE regular full time job will be able to afford a mortgage and a home. The average full time job in Canada pays 50k. Let's be generous and say she makes 75k. after taxes that leaves about 55k per year or approx 4200 per month The biggest mortgage she can carry has payments of 1500 per month which means she is looking at 200 to 300k max on a house or a 150 to 200k strata unit when you also add in those strata fees Outside of rural small towns in the prairies this would be impossible to deliver on by any politician. For housing to collapse by 70% or more would completely collapse the economy. Building a ton more new houses will lower the price of both new and old but not anywhere near the level PP is promising. To fulfill PP housing promise either wages need to triple or housing needs to be collapsed.by 2/3 value and neither option is going to happen If anyone thinks trades people are going to work for near minimum wage so houses can sell that cheap .... They are not living in the real world And the lower interest rates helped people buy and that causes a supply issue that drove costs up. Higher interests slows the growth and the slower it gets more trades people move.to where the work is ... And when housing grows again the developers have to pay more to get trades to work and the prices go up In BC at least other than interest rates the explosive prices are more provincial issues than federal. Poor planning for decades has see investors buy up Vancouver and control the prices. You go to Saskatchewan and Alberta and there is still livable housing in smaller.cities and towns around 200k ..... Problem is there isn't many jobs especially in thee towns. I don't give truduea any passing grades either as he hasnt helped mitigate anything which he could have done to ease the problems PP also is handcuffed with how much he can drive down housing prices. The majority of seniors now retiring have no pensions other than cpp ... They are house rich money poor. Those seniors are banking on being able.to use that equity to live in retirement. A forced devaluation would wipe out many working seniors wanting to retire And I do think the feds have a role in.housing. Developers have no incentive to build sufficient low income housing. Government needs to start building more And who can save a down payment these days ? We need to see government assistance for working people to help with down payments. Many workers can afford the 2k rent and could afford a 2 mortgage .... They can't afford the 45k downpayment and that's something government could in my opinion do more to help with. I don't have all the solutions but would like to see the feds maybe provide the downpayment for qualified workers in exchange for joint ownership title. The money to be repaid with interest when the house is sold or at any time when the owner chooses before that to pay it off... Conservatives all have the same plan. No higher wages due to the the need for higher corporate earnings .... The trickle.down theory at work ... BUT the whole plan depends on near zero and widely avaible credit for everyone. PP and Trump have both gone after those setting interest rates for raising them and both of them are banking on a return to low interest so workers can just spend their way to the solutions on housing I'd be curious what your view on the solution should be.... So far I don't see anything from either leader that will have much effect other than a return to low interest rates ..... 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 41 minutes ago, Bob Long said: If you're an older millennial who's been working at a decent gig at a big company like Hydro or other large private firms that match contributions, yeah there could be a fair number of folks that could use the RRSP thing. Even if you don't max out the 60k, you'd certainly have something to take out. Now do this for professional couples and you're getting somewhere. My niece and her fiancé are renting right now for $3,600 per month, they'd benefit a lot from this program. If the plan allowed anyone purchasing a home and not just first time buyers do the same I think that would be a better rollout I'd like to see a path where workers by age 30 have a chance to own. To achieve 60k in RRSP would take.most workers 15 or more years of savings which puts them 35 to 40 years old as first time buyers The Canadian dream was... Or at least should be that working lifts you out of poverty and if you work you should be able to afford a home of some sort and have it paid by age 60 so your last 5 years of work can be to save up for retirement. To do that they need to buy in no later than age 35 to pay off a full mortgage This plan helps but doesn't help those under 35 very much Also ..... Would like to see interest on mortgage payments be tax deductable for first time owners and anyone who's total owned property is under 1 million in value Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: LMFAO. Like a first time homebuyer has $60k in their RRSP. And only on newly built homes? Which first time homebuyer with a $60k downpayment can afford to buy a newly built home? What a nothingburger. I can see the attacks on this already from PP. Trudeau literally just scripted his new campaign ad... My son could have that in his RRSP's but instead has $80,000 in his TFSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) While this doesn’t help immediately specially for younger Canadians it’s not completely a nothing burger. To qualify as a first time home buyer you only have to be out of the market (ie renting) for 5 years. You can have purchased a home before that (as long as you have disposed of it and it’s been at least 5 years). Also combined with the FHSA (again very new so may take some time) for a couple, that’s equivalent to $200k accessible (assuming no growth in the FHSA so it’s $40k per person - growth in the investments would add more to this). Not a huge thing but also nothing to sneeze at imo. Edited April 11 by Ronaldoescobar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 3 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: My son could have that in his RRSP's but instead has $80,000 in his TFSA I stopped adding to my RRSP a few years back and now focus on my TFSA .... For many it's better financially When you have alot of space in your RRSP the tax savings can be greater but in the long run once you hit your max and only have your yearly new amounts the tax savings are minimal and in retirement TFSA definitely offer greater flexibility ... Especially in estate planning 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 26 minutes ago, Sapper said: If the plan allowed anyone purchasing a home and not just first time buyers do the same I think that would be a better rollout I'd like to see a path where workers by age 30 have a chance to own. To achieve 60k in RRSP would take.most workers 15 or more years of savings which puts them 35 to 40 years old as first time buyers yep, and there are actually many of those 26 minutes ago, Sapper said: The Canadian dream was... Or at least should be that working lifts you out of poverty and if you work you should be able to afford a home of some sort and have it paid by age 60 so your last 5 years of work can be to save up for retirement. To do that they need to buy in no later than age 35 to pay off a full mortgage This plan helps but doesn't help those under 35 very much Also ..... Would like to see interest on mortgage payments be tax deductable for first time owners and anyone who's total owned property is under 1 million in value yeah U35s are in a different spot for sure, they may have to wait for much bigger supply solutions. This one feels targeted to that 35-40ish older millennial group, and thats just fine, not every program has to help everyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 5 minutes ago, Sapper said: I stopped adding to my RRSP a few years back and now focus on my TFSA .... For many it's better financially When you have alot of space in your RRSP the tax savings can be greater but in the long run once you hit your max and only have your yearly new amounts the tax savings are minimal and in retirement TFSA definitely offer greater flexibility ... Especially in estate planning He will have a Government pension when he retires so RRSP's were not a priority. This is the 1st year he bought $5000 worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 5 hours ago, Sapper said: I still have issue with this What first time buyer has that much in RRSP's or can afford a brand new build houses mortgage payments at all ? He'll who as a first time home.buyer jumps in for their first with a brand new house ? We actually have a solution but governments lack the balls to actually do it as it takes the profit from developers who financially back both sides If I could be the housing minister for one day I'd pass a law that every community needs to provide freehold land designated as modular housing land. The land could not be sold as builders terms. Just legislate that the modular home needs to be either new or restored as new on placement Families and seniors could then purchase small lots around 250k and for another 200 to 250k have a new modular set up ..... In some areas of Canada the land might only be 10k This would give people affordable housing that is fully mortgage qualifying and no strata fees.... 3 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: LMFAO. Like a first time homebuyer has $60k in their RRSP. And only on newly built homes? Which first time homebuyer with a $60k downpayment can afford to buy a newly built home? What a nothingburger. I can see the attacks on this already from PP. Trudeau literally just scripted his new campaign ad... The new house thing is dumb. But, having 60k in RRSP isn’t unheard of when buying your first house. Hahaha Who the fuck is buying a house at 20? I had much more than that in my RRSP. I bought my first house at 30 and had been jamming money into my RRSP for 10 years at that point. Lots of people do this. It’s called being smart(ish) when you were younger. At that time, you could only take 25k out and you had to put it back in within 15 years to avoid the tax. It would have been great to have access to 60k of my money instead of 25k. Could have used more of that instead of money saved. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 hour ago, Ronaldoescobar said: While this doesn’t help immediately specially for younger Canadians it’s not completely a nothing burger. To qualify as a first time home buyer you only have to be out of the market (ie renting) for 5 years. You can have purchased a home before that (as long as you have disposed of it and it’s been at least 5 years). Also combined with the FHSA (again very new so may take some time) for a couple, that’s equivalent to $200k accessible (assuming no growth in the FHSA so it’s $40k per person - growth in the investments would add more to this). Not a huge thing but also nothing to sneeze at imo. The 30 year amortization only works on a newly built home. It should be for EVERY home. A one bedroom 550sf condo in Burnaby newly built is $700k. If you put $60k down on that from your RRSP and mortgage the rest you’d need to be making close to $200k per year. Just to live in a one bedroom condo. This new program MAY help some millennials, but it definitely isn’t helping most of the gen z’ers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said: My son could have that in his RRSP's but instead has $80,000 in his TFSA I agree about going TFSA over RRSP. However the max for your TFSA is only $7k regardless of your income. So someone in their 20’s is gonna need a long time to accumulate $80k in their TFSA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Every program doesn't have to be designed to help every type of buyer. Suggesting otherwise is a weak argument, so that's where Poilievre will go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 3 hours ago, Sapper said: Chilliwack will cost you 800k for a fixer upper on a 66x120 lot. New builds are on 33x120 lots and run 1.1 million right now Every lot 66' and wider is eligible to be subdivided into 2 lots in Chilliwack. The vast majority of older homes are being bought my developers who suite them and rent them out till they are ready to tear down and build 2 new houses. As an added bonus most of those renters are causing values to drop as the neighborhood gets turned into a gehtto and the developers get to buy a few more lots to make more ( that's another whole issue ) Want a good older house on a 66 foot lot they start at 875k And your giving PP a free pass - why ? If it's wrong for the liberals it should be wrong for him PP has been campaigning in his housing plan to attach federal dollars to conditions that local governments approve new builds and denser zoning etc. The conservatives cheered this Trudeau copy cats it in this budget and now Alberta is moving a law to get around it ... They were fine if PP does it but only for him PP also has stated that if elected a single.mother with ONE regular full time job will be able to afford a mortgage and a home. The average full time job in Canada pays 50k. Let's be generous and say she makes 75k. after taxes that leaves about 55k per year or approx 4200 per month The biggest mortgage she can carry has payments of 1500 per month which means she is looking at 200 to 300k max on a house or a 150 to 200k strata unit when you also add in those strata fees Outside of rural small towns in the prairies this would be impossible to deliver on by any politician. For housing to collapse by 70% or more would completely collapse the economy. Building a ton more new houses will lower the price of both new and old but not anywhere near the level PP is promising. To fulfill PP housing promise either wages need to triple or housing needs to be collapsed.by 2/3 value and neither option is going to happen If anyone thinks trades people are going to work for near minimum wage so houses can sell that cheap .... They are not living in the real world And the lower interest rates helped people buy and that causes a supply issue that drove costs up. Higher interests slows the growth and the slower it gets more trades people move.to where the work is ... And when housing grows again the developers have to pay more to get trades to work and the prices go up In BC at least other than interest rates the explosive prices are more provincial issues than federal. Poor planning for decades has see investors buy up Vancouver and control the prices. You go to Saskatchewan and Alberta and there is still livable housing in smaller.cities and towns around 200k ..... Problem is there isn't many jobs especially in thee towns. I don't give truduea any passing grades either as he hasnt helped mitigate anything which he could have done to ease the problems PP also is handcuffed with how much he can drive down housing prices. The majority of seniors now retiring have no pensions other than cpp ... They are house rich money poor. Those seniors are banking on being able.to use that equity to live in retirement. A forced devaluation would wipe out many working seniors wanting to retire And I do think the feds have a role in.housing. Developers have no incentive to build sufficient low income housing. Government needs to start building more And who can save a down payment these days ? We need to see government assistance for working people to help with down payments. Many workers can afford the 2k rent and could afford a 2 mortgage .... They can't afford the 45k downpayment and that's something government could in my opinion do more to help with. I don't have all the solutions but would like to see the feds maybe provide the downpayment for qualified workers in exchange for joint ownership title. The money to be repaid with interest when the house is sold or at any time when the owner chooses before that to pay it off... Conservatives all have the same plan. No higher wages due to the the need for higher corporate earnings .... The trickle.down theory at work ... BUT the whole plan depends on near zero and widely avaible credit for everyone. PP and Trump have both gone after those setting interest rates for raising them and both of them are banking on a return to low interest so workers can just spend their way to the solutions on housing I'd be curious what your view on the solution should be.... So far I don't see anything from either leader that will have much effect other than a return to low interest rates ..... Our housing situation is completely fucked so there isn’t a simple answer to fix the problem. If you lower interest rates back to 2% then you risk housing prices to go even higher. If you make it super easy to get a mortgage like it used to be then you accomplish the same thing. Higher real estate prices. If you tank the real estate market then you risk people losing their homes and having nothing left. And then you will have a massive recession. The governments have kept interest rates artificially low for way too long. They printed too much money which has now handcuffed any future government and government spending. There is only one solution to the problem. Adding a MASSIVE amount of inventory and supply to the market. Without tanking the market. Building smaller units to lower price but still make it profitable for developers and builders to build. If it’s not profitable developers and builders won’t build. The problem with adding a massive amount of inventory to the market is that it takes years to accomplish this. Maybe decades. So like I said we are pretty much fucked at this point. Generation Z is a lost generation. They will never be able to own a home. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: PP isn't selling anything. He isn't the Prime Minister. Whatever is happening now and for the last 8 years is on the Liberal government. At the end of the day, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of building homes anyways. The main reason house prices have risen exponentially is because of a lack of supply and artificially low interest rates for the last 10+ years. The federal government had a chance to do something in this year's budget to help first time homebuyers. They get a big F if this is all they got. It's a joke really. PP is already starting his campaign ads. As for the Fraser Valley, you can't just subdivide any lot. It doesn't work that way. You have to be in areas where the zoning allows that. Also, $1.8 million for a new build in Surrey on a 33' lot isn't cheap. How the heck is a first time home buyer supposed to afford that? They literally have to move to Chilliwack if they want to buy a detached home. Even then it's almost impossible... You should check the new municipal zoning and provincial laws regarding zoning and allowable builds for lot size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 16 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Our housing situation is completely fucked so there isn’t a simple answer to fix the problem. If you lower interest rates back to 2% then you risk housing prices to go even higher. If you make it super easy to get a mortgage like it used to be then you accomplish the same thing. Higher real estate prices. If you tank the real estate market then you risk people losing their homes and having nothing left. And then you will have a massive recession. The governments have kept interest rates artificially low for way too long. They printed too much money which has now handcuffed any future government and government spending. There is only one solution to the problem. Adding a MASSIVE amount of inventory and supply to the market. Without tanking the market. Building smaller units to lower price but still make it profitable for developers and builders to build. If it’s not profitable developers and builders won’t build. The problem with adding a massive amount of inventory to the market is that it takes years to accomplish this. Maybe decades. So like I said we are pretty much fucked at this point. Generation Z is a lost generation. They will never be able to own a home. I have no idea if this would be feasible in Canada (I don't know enough on the subject to render an opinion): 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: I agree about going TFSA over RRSP. However the max for your TFSA is only $7k regardless of your income. So someone in their 20’s is gonna need a long time to accumulate $80k in their TFSA. My son is 28. I will ask him again. Edited April 12 by The Arrogant Worms 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 29 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Our housing situation is completely fucked so there isn’t a simple answer to fix the problem. If you lower interest rates back to 2% then you risk housing prices to go even higher. If you make it super easy to get a mortgage like it used to be then you accomplish the same thing. Higher real estate prices. If you tank the real estate market then you risk people losing their homes and having nothing left. And then you will have a massive recession. The governments have kept interest rates artificially low for way too long. They printed too much money which has now handcuffed any future government and government spending. There is only one solution to the problem. Adding a MASSIVE amount of inventory and supply to the market. Without tanking the market. Building smaller units to lower price but still make it profitable for developers and builders to build. If it’s not profitable developers and builders won’t build. The problem with adding a massive amount of inventory to the market is that it takes years to accomplish this. Maybe decades. So like I said we are pretty much fucked at this point. Generation Z is a lost generation. They will never be able to own a home. This sounded familiar so I googled and found an 80's washington post article that says exactly what you are saying here. My generation was fucked and could never buy a house. hehehe, i am living in the forth home I have ever bought, the first one was humble, the second one was even more humble but in a better location, the third one was brand new and I bought it in 2010, this one is ideal and could be my forever home, but make me an offer and I will move, if it is a really nice offer. I may build my forever home to order from scratch in five years, i dunno yet, i like this spot. Anywho...Gen Z will be typing this out when they are fifty so I will let that person decide if they should build a custom final home or not. Quote Homeownership has declined in the 1980s for the first time since World War II, according to a new congressional study. "In the decades following World War II you saw homeownership continue to climb, but in the '80s it headed downhill," said Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.). "And the reasons were ... that housing costs were up, but -- one of the big ones -- interest rates were up." Homeownership peaked at 65.6 percent of the population in 1980 and then began falling, hitting 63.9 percent last year, according to a study by a senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. The study, released last week, found homeownership had fallen dramatically in the youngest age groups. In 1973, nearly one-fourth -- or 23.4 percent of people younger than 25 -- owned a home. In 1988 the rate was 15.5 percent. In other younger age groups, the situation is similar: 43.6 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds were homeowners in 1973, falling to 36.2 percent in 1988. For the 30- to 34-year-old group, 60.2 percent owned homes in 1973, dropping to 52.6 percent in 1988. And in the 35- to 39 bracket, the rate fell from 68.5 percent in 1973 to 63.2 percent in 1988. The average age of first-time home buyers now has increased to 32, up from 28 years old in 1980, the study said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 38 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Our housing situation is completely fucked so there isn’t a simple answer to fix the problem. If you lower interest rates back to 2% then you risk housing prices to go even higher. If you make it super easy to get a mortgage like it used to be then you accomplish the same thing. Higher real estate prices. If you tank the real estate market then you risk people losing their homes and having nothing left. And then you will have a massive recession. The governments have kept interest rates artificially low for way too long. They printed too much money which has now handcuffed any future government and government spending. There is only one solution to the problem. Adding a MASSIVE amount of inventory and supply to the market. Without tanking the market. Building smaller units to lower price but still make it profitable for developers and builders to build. If it’s not profitable developers and builders won’t build. The problem with adding a massive amount of inventory to the market is that it takes years to accomplish this. Maybe decades. So like I said we are pretty much fucked at this point. Generation Z is a lost generation. They will never be able to own a home. I've got a few friends that do home construction ( a few houses per year so small scale ) and they are very concerned about any government intentionally flooding the market with new builds. Their concerns are more then just the lowering of prices with over stock ... But there bigger fear is it would leave the trades in ruins as with lower prices and unsold.supply developers would have to drastically cut wages to be able to get any profits. The trades which are a transient work force would simply pack up and leave to move to where capital projects are happening so they could maintain their current pay levels That means leaky condo 2.0 as contractors have to take.whats left for workers and cut corners Also low interest rates or not ...an entire generation who started work post 1985 is getting ready to retire and the majority of them have no workplace pensions.and are banking on their house values to survive. Those values fall any significant amounts and they can't retire.... Ever. I do agree with you that low interest rates killed the dream. I purchased my first house for 130k and 5% interest. My mortgage payments were 35% of my pay. That same house now would cost 850k and in that same job the mortgage would be double the full salary The push for near zero interest did fill the cash registers without having to give big pay raises but have left us with grossly overpriced housing and vehicles and record consumer debt Any and all solutions will be catastrophic to 1/2 the population.... Expect large corporations..... They won't miss a blink 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 21 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: This sounded familiar so I googled and found an 80's washington post article that says exactly what you are saying here. My generation was fucked and could never buy a house. hehehe, i am living in the forth home I have ever bought, the first one was humble, the second one was even more humble but in a better location, the third one was brand new and I bought it in 2010, this one is ideal and could be my forever home, but make me an offer and I will move, if it is a really nice offer. I may build my forever home to order from scratch in five years, i dunno yet, i like this spot. Anywho...Gen Z will be typing this out when they are fifty so I will let that person decide if they should build a custom final home or not. Bought my 1st in Duncan in 1987. Interest was 12.9% but the price was $52,000 in the same neighbourhood I grew up in down the street from my parents house. Love the house I live in now.....been here 27 years but the yard is way too big too look after these days. Big lot....good neighbours. We we probably sell in the next few years and get a rancher. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 10 minutes ago, Sapper said: I've got a few friends that do home construction ( a few houses per year so small scale ) and they are very concerned about any government intentionally flooding the market with new builds. Their concerns are more then just the lowering of prices with over stock ... But there bigger fear is it would leave the trades in ruins as with lower prices and unsold.supply developers would have to drastically cut wages to be able to get any profits. The trades which are a transient work force would simply pack up and leave to move to where capital projects are happening so they could maintain their current pay levels That means leaky condo 2.0 as contractors have to take.whats left for workers and cut corners Also low interest rates or not ...an entire generation who started work post 1985 is getting ready to retire and the majority of them have no workplace pensions.and are banking on their house values to survive. Those values fall any significant amounts and they can't retire.... Ever. I do agree with you that low interest rates killed the dream. I purchased my first house for 130k and 5% interest. My mortgage payments were 35% of my pay. That same house now would cost 850k and in that same job the mortgage would be double the full salary The push for near zero interest did fill the cash registers without having to give big pay raises but have left us with grossly overpriced housing and vehicles and record consumer debt Any and all solutions will be catastrophic to 1/2 the population.... Expect large corporations..... They won't miss a blink 1985? Did you mean 75? Because 1985 is only 39 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 (edited) 17 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: 1985? Did you mean 75? Because 1985 is only 39 years ago. The first generation of adult workers entering the workforce where the majority would not be under any employer pensions was during the Mulroney term and those worked are now hitting 60 and will begin retiring in a few years The worked who started in 75 are at or over 70 and many still had baby pensions they earned before the 80's anti union and worker pay movement Many of those people are the ones you see now living in RV's in rest stops etc I remember at a pension forum years back it being provided that workers finishing their life's work and retiring during the period 1980 to 1990 was the last generation where greater than 51% of males and 33% of females retired with some form of pension not just cpp. Since 1990 that has steadily declined and after 1990 virtual no private workers.have access to a full career pension plan with their employer other than auto workers and a few others. The only group keeping that stat from flat lining is public workers. Many families the man works private industry no pensions but higher wages and the wife works public with lower wages but a pension plan. It's the only way some families are able to survive in retirement Edited April 12 by Sapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.