CN Tower
Banned
2 of the least intelligent statements you've made here.
Try toning down the bitterness. It won't make you richer to hope someone else gets poorer.
|
|
|
- Thread starter simuls
- Start date
2 of the least intelligent statements you've made here.
Try toning down the bitterness. It won't make you richer to hope someone else gets poorer.
Eug
Senior Member
About 5 million Canadians are enrolled in defined benefit pension plans. Now that includes people my age (ie. younger than baby boomers), but considering that organizations are moving away from DB pensions there is heavier representation in these plans by baby boomers.
Indeed, many will retire with a mortgage, but a ton won't, and lots that do retire with a mortgage will only have a few years of payments left in their mortgages. IOW, even if they do retire with a mortgage, they will still have tons of equity already accumulated in that mortgage.
According to your link the urban population has grown by 17.3% in 10 years. That works out to a little over 1.6% per year.
Eug
Senior Member
P.S. The FLQ and friends really did do a number on Montreal.
1961 Montreal city: 1.257 million
1971 Montreal city: 1.214 million
1981 Montreal city: 1.019 million
1991 Montreal city: 1.017 million
1961 Toronto city: 1.824 million
1971 Toronto city: 2.090 million
1981 Toronto city: 2.137 million
1991 Toronto city: 2.276 million
1961 Montreal city: 1.257 million
1971 Montreal city: 1.214 million
1981 Montreal city: 1.019 million
1991 Montreal city: 1.017 million
1961 Toronto city: 1.824 million
1971 Toronto city: 2.090 million
1981 Toronto city: 2.137 million
1991 Toronto city: 2.276 million
ILuvTO
Active Member
The only scenario I see where prices flat line or just keep pace with inflation is if rates do not rise and people eventually hit their debt ceiling. In any other scenario where rates go up at all, I can definitely see prices pulling back. The % of pull-back will depend on the % of interest rate increase.
With regards to scenario #1 where people hit their debt ceiling, I don't really see this happening. People have shown they love debt and will load up on it for any number of reasons, primarily that they believe all the real estate propaganda.
Eug
Senior Member
Rates will likely remain low through 2014, or in the very least until sometime in 2013, if the governments are to be believed. After that, rates will probably rise, but there is no guarantee that rates will rise quickly.
Furthermore, I could see 5-year fixed rates going well north of 4% with prices still slowly increasing. So, let's say by 2015 rates really do start rising more. That's 3 years from now, and 6 years from the beginning of this thread.
Furthermore, I could see 5-year fixed rates going well north of 4% with prices still slowly increasing. So, let's say by 2015 rates really do start rising more. That's 3 years from now, and 6 years from the beginning of this thread.
Last edited:
interested
Senior Member
I am one of those stats: left Montreal in 1973 to come to the "big smoke".
My friends had a "wake" for me because I was leaving Montreal (the City) to go to "Hogtown". This was a couple of years after I finished high school. Yes, I know, I am dating myself.
Ironically, about 10 years later there was a high school reunion which I did not go to but heard that almost 2/3 of the class was living in Toronto. So you are right, the FLQ and the Seperation movement did a lot to move people and businesses out of Montreal in particular and Quebec in general.
2/3 of the high school class
interested
Senior Member
I think this is a best case scenario and I think unlikely frankly.
If interest rates go well north of 4% I am virtually sure of 2 things, the economy will have recovered to a degree because otherwise it will not support the higher interest rates and real estate prices are still too high given the damage to most people's credit. Unless Eug you feel there is endless demand for Toronto which I do not personally believe, at some point there will be a break in prices, though I clearly do not know exactly when that point will be).
If interest rates stay low, it is because the economy and uncertainty are not doing well and while we may have made sense to park money from unstable places and earn no rate of return, if prices continue to go up, it means these investors will be now losing money. I have to believe they will look at other places to invest where they at least preserve capital, if not truly attempt to get a rate of return on their investment.
Eug
Senior Member
Yes, the interest rates rising significantly above 4% will likely be fairly closely in step with the status of the economy. That's mainly for prime, but also for real-world street rates for 5-year fixed.
Eug
Senior Member
Yeah, very unfortunate, both for everyone that was hurt, and Montreal itself. IMO, Montreal may never fully recover. I like Montreal, but it's become a 2nd tier city in Canada in some ways. The money of les ethniques just isn't flowing into the city anymore. As one example, Chinese only represent 2% of the population, vs. 11% in Toronto, and a lot of those Chinese are partially responsible for runups in prices in places like Willowdale, Richmond Hill, and Scarborough, to name a few places in the GTA.
Hell, even some of my francophone friends moved from Montreal to Toronto (or elsewhere) because they just got sick of the politics and the lower pay.
rbt
Senior Member
Not too certain it was FLQ specifically, though they didn't help. Leaving the city center for the outer suburbs seemed to be a popular thing to do during that time period in many cities in North America. Toronto was an oddity, not so much Montreal.
Montreals greater area continued to grow during that time period. This pattern from the 60's to 90's can also be seen in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia.
Eug
Senior Member
interested
Senior Member
I agree.
One point, Montreal will always be a regional capital and nothing more. All the big banks were headquartered there, now Toronto. Even BMO moved its headquarters.
Those jobs are gone, Toronto has firmly established itself as "the city" in Canada. If anyone were to replace it, it would likely be Calgary and I don't see that happening as long as 1/3 of the whole population is here. That said, if oil were to go to $200 a la Jeff Rubin predictions....clearly Calgary and the West effectively bankrupt Ontario and the rest of the country unless there is another National Energy Policy or something which the West may/may not tolerate and in fact "separate". Anyhow, too much politics and not really related to the thread. Sorry. I will try and get back on track.
interested
Senior Member
That was the final straw for my father as well.
He said he did not leave Europe to become a second class citizen and could see the similarities to Europe pre WW2 and was not going to live through it again.
I too still love the "joie de vivre" in Quebec and Montreal but frankly along with the exodus of people a lot of the culture was brought to Toronto. Toronto is a much more cosmopolitan city now that it was "pre 1970".
I guess Montreal's loss has truly been Toronto's gain. Said for the Montrealers. That said, Montreal is still a great city and a lot of fun with great shopping, well dressed people, and a much more fun place to be. I always sensed that the Montrealers worked to live, whereas the Torontonians lived to work.
Eug
Senior Member
BTW, if you finished high school in '71, that means you're a baby boomer. So, if you don't mind my asking, will you be mortgage free when you retire? (My guess is yes, given your previous posts), and do you have a defined benefit pension plan? Don't answer if you don't want to, but I'll volunteer. I am too young to be a baby boomer, but likely older than many here. I have a defined benefit pension plan and my mortgage will be paid off long before I retire.
interested
Senior Member
See p.m.
Defined benefit pension plans cover a very small part of the population. Other than large institutions and government, teachers, most people do not have them. I don't recall exact numbers but self employed do not and they are I believe 60% of the work force.
Of the residual 40%; only about 35% have defined benefit plans or about 14% of the whole Canadian work force. About another 20-25% are covered by defined contribution programs. The rest of us fare on our own with RRSP's. And we know the majority of Canadians cannot or choose not (rather it is the former as they can't afford to) max out the RRSP.
People in the privileged position of having Defined Benefit Plans are amongst the only people who can afford to retire.
In your situation I commend you. Clearly from your posts you make informed decisions.
However, having a defined benefit program means all the money you would be putting towards your own retirement and let me suggest RRSP maximum payments will not be enough so you would have to save further outside the RRSP. This money can go to your mortgage or where ever. This is what is so difficult for Canadians without these plans. I see it among my peer group. They make good money but could not maintain their standard of living or even close since unless exceptionally lucky, RRSP's have not given the return or close to what someone having the defined benefit program is acheiving. Further, the risk is solely on the individual. The proof of the pudding as it were is that companies are trying not to offer defined benefit programs and trying the end them in fact in a number of cases or putting new employees on defined contribution plans. Only government cruises along merrily with a huge unfunded liability which John Q. Taxpayer has to subsidize. The companies are transferring responsibility because I believe they realize the returns from the 70's to 2000 will not be repeated going forward. Inflation is down relative to those years, outsized returns will not happen, and the amount/cost will go up.
Last edited: