Originally Posted by Aviator

Not necessarily. Owning you build equity and for many it could be paid off in 25 years if they don't keep moving up. After the mortgage is free and clear, just basic living costs and the value of the home is your own.

Renting is paying someone else's mortgage. In 25 years, they own the property and the renter keeps on paying. Over 25 years owners can be 10's of thousands ahead. My kid pays 30% less on mortgage than an equivalent for rent and has already seen a 20% increase in equity value.

Originally Posted by Shard

This is about "minimum standards". It's true that at a certain point a house or an income level can't make you happy, but up to that point, not having the "minimum" will detract from happiness.

And this of course changes over time. It's why we're happy roughing it in crap hotels when we're students, but want some luxury when we're older. Ditto homes.

Originally Posted by MarylandNed

The problem is that a lack of affordability can create a lack of livability. Every home owner wants their house value to go up after they've bought. None ever think about the impact on their surroundings when certain groups of people can't afford to get onto the same property ladder.

Serious problems can arise when people (especially those providing essential services e.g. teachers, healthcare workers, law enforcement, firefighters etc) can't afford to live within a reasonable commute of their jobs. Businesses can also have trouble attracting workers.

Many will make the argument that this is self-correcting and that the free market will determine prices. For example, no-one will want to live somewhere if adequate essential services are not being provided and so housing costs will fall. But it's not always as simple as that. Local government also needs to do its part by making sure that development is smart, transportation is in place and different housing options are available.

Originally Posted by Aviator

Yes, as well as some other costs and benefits.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

This. It's especially hard when everyone your age you know is so far a head in life, have a house, good job etc.

We don't want anything fancy, something small with a yard so we can do things we cannot do in a rental, namely a decent kitchen so cooking is so frustrating, and a yard so I can have my pond, and little garden to pass time.

I don't want some 2,000 sq foot thing, I'd be happy with 800 sq feet as long as it had a yard.

Originally Posted by vanity

Well said. I can't see who this is all benefitting apart from....real estate agents, developers, old time owners , and banks/mortgage companies.

It's important (IMO) to maintain a healthy middle class, and to not create a society which values materialism above community/healthy populace.

The norm nowadays seems to be a lifetime of debt, but yes, agree with dbd33 - if (one) doesn't like it, one can certainly leave to go elsewhere.

Salaries in Vancouver are the lowest I have seen.

Originally Posted by vanity

Salaries in Vancouver are the lowest I have seen.

Originally Posted by Howefamily

You can't mean all salaries in all professions surely? That wouldn't make sense

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

...if using median income levels, Vancouver isn't as high as some..

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

There will always be professions that pay more in Vancouver, but if using median income levels, Vancouver isn't as high as some lower cost of living but less desirable places to live.

Just comes down to in a lot of professions more people wanting a job then jobs, so companies can offer less and still attract people.

In 2012, stats Canada has Vancouver median at 71,000 (family income, not individual income) Halifax was 80,000, St. Johns, NL 87,000, Oshawa, ON 86,000, Calgary 98,000, Saskatoon 87,000, Regina 81,000, Winnipeg 75,000.

Toronto median is more or less the same as Vancouver.

Median total income, by family type, by census metropolitan area (All census families)

Originally Posted by Aviator

A mode average would be more representative of incomes as it is the most frequently occurring value in a data set rather than just the middle value.
The joy of stats, one can pretty much get the result you want with the right methodology and dataset.

Originally Posted by el_richo

This shows BC's average weekly earnings are below the national average. Sitting 8th out of 13th on the list. Very poor showing.

Earnings, average weekly, by province and territory

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian

Im betting those figures don't include grow ops and the sale of weed

Originally Posted by Aviator

A mode average would be more representative of incomes as it is the most frequently occurring value in a data set rather than just the middle value.
The joy of stats, one can pretty much get the result you want with the right methodology and dataset.