# Why do homes COST so much?



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Out of curiosity, I looked at the pricing of homes within Toronto and GTA's outskirts, and haven't found one yet under $450,000 for a standard-sized home. Am I missing something.. is that the minimum price which only climbs thereafter? Then I thought I'd look at condos, as they may be less.. less if you consider $250,000+ "less," or any more affordable. 

I find it ridiculous that you need to have a $150,000+ income per year to afford "to own." I understand the idea behind market value, etc., but that really doesn't make the insane prices any more justified, no?

I'm not interested in buying presently, but that could change in the next 5 years... or, you, never, if I have to wait until I make half a million a year annual income.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Here in Calgary I have a home that is worth $15,000 sitting on a lot that is close to half a mil. Most of the homes that sell around here are torn down and newer mansions built.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Here's a hint: it's not the materials used to make the house so much as it's the land it's sitting on and its proximity to a comprehensive range of services and infrastructure. At least, that's the logic behind city prices. Elsewhere, in rural Canada, there are a host of different reasons.

{And to toss a bone to MacDoc - it's also the result of developer and "flipper" speculation. But I think that the majority of the explanation is what I first offered up).

In any case, if you are looking to buy in a booming major Canadian city, start saving now and expect to be paying down whatever you end up getting for a long, long time.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

If you're handy there are some fixer up homes in the 200,000 - 250,000 range. The problem is folks want to move into the perfect home. The less expensive places are snapped up, usually by immigrants who aren't adverse to a little sweat and labour. Todays standards of home ownership are a great deal higher than previous generations... hence higher costs.

As gas price escalates so too will property within the city. I'm about to put an old, fixer upper on the market and buy a condo. I've been watching the market carefully.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If you like big cities, you're going to have to pay for it. Toronto is, long-term, heading for prices similar to other major international centres. Maybe commute from Guelph?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Many people are quick to think they are making big money on their homes due to the jump in real estate prices in the past few years.

I stopped to consider my own situation and when you weigh it all up, there is not a lot of profit left. For example, we paid $100,000 for our home 19 years ago. 

Six years back, we did major renovations which included, new shingles, soffits, gutters, entrance and screen doors, insulation in the attic, two new bathrooms with vanities and fixtures, new sidewalks, new fence, total interior paint, new kitchen counters and plumbing with all new appliances, new crown moldings, new maple hardwood floors in the upper level, new carpeting in the lower level, electrical wiring changed from aluminum to copper, new maple railings and spindles, a new energy efficient furnace, a new 55 gallon hot water heater and a new deck on the rear of the house. Total cost, $80,000. 

So now we have $180,000 invested in the home, but wait, our 25 year mortgage payments were a grand a month for 300 months or $300,000. That's $200,000 more than we paid for the house, so we now have $380,000 invested in the home. The most recent appraisal last fall came in at $375,000.

Seems to me we're out about $5,000, but if you throw in the other repairs over the years for small things that go wrong every year, we're likely out closer to $10,000.

Yeah, we're making a killing on this place.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

First, most home renovations do not return close to 100% of their cost. A large piece is just for personal enjoyment. Also, investments that reduced your bills had some offsetting cash flow benefits.

Second, depreciation of physical assets is a factor. You use up various aspects of the home and the renovations.

Third, did you include your whole mortgage payment, or just the payment off principal? Along those lines, did you invest $100k or a smaller amount as downpayment? You may be double counting (ie. interest on the amount of money you borrowed is not an investment).

Fourth, home ownership is not necessarily a great investment. With certain timing, such as people that bought in the mid-to-late 1990s, it can be hugely profitable. Longer-term, it's questionable. I think in calculations I did some years back, they become most questionable after you "own" about 40% of the asset. Or maybe it was 40% of the value when purchased. 

Still, it does have its non-financial benefits (more control over living space) and is a nice way to diversify your investments.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yeah, we're making a killing on this place.


Beats renting... which is what I've been doing for the past 25 years.

However, I just bought my first house last month (deal closes on June 1). So now I can start shoveling money into my *own* hole.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Beats renting... which is what I've been doing for the past 25 years.
> 
> However, I just bought my first house last month (deal closes on June 1). So now I can start shoveling money into my *own* hole.
> 
> Cheers


Not necessarily and congratulations. It does feel better to own, in my opinion.

I hope to be digging my own hole in the near future.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Owning property is good, owning the house that sits on it is bad.... _Just need to figure out how to remedy that...._  

Lease a pre-built house from the dealership and turn it in every few years for a newer model.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Don, I am in a similar situation as you. What I did, however, is put in $1200 a month on a weekly basis and we brought our 25 year mortgage down to 14 years. I have just over 4 more years left. 

What is driving up the price of our home is the land. The home is about 3300 square feet, so it is too big to just knock down. However, our latest appraisal was $281,000 because the land is worth $120,000 according to the city.

Thus, I think the situation is the same elsewhere -- the price of the land/lot is what is driving up the prices of homes, along with the availability of these spots in places where people want to live.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

There is a reason why the real estate creedo "Location, location, location!" exists. It applies at the macro and the micro level. Toronto is expensive because lots of people want to live there. Availablity of employment is a factor, so is the fact that GTO is something of a cultural hub. Not my cup of tea but that's another story.

Best real estate deals in the country right now (as in 3 bedroom, 5 years old @$42,000, fixer uppers that are not beyond the pale I have seen for as low as $22,000) are to be had down east *if you can take an income with you*, ie. retired, independently wealthy, etc. This is an artifact of the (non)employment situation. Easterners are going west for work, and in the free market tradition someone's gain is someone else's loss. If you cannot take an income with you, you will find it as tough as the native easterners.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray, sad but all too true. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are moving to Alberta and are experiencing "sticker shock" when they see the cost of housing. Granted, the salaries are vastly higher, and there are jobs there, but one does have to live somewhere.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

If anyone is interested in what you can do with a fixer upper I have spent the last seven years turning my 100 year old house around in Vancouver.

I've included some before and after pics. (Just ignopre the first few posts because the thread began on a subject other than house renos).

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/51886-looking-accounting-type-program.html#post542206


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There was a good article I was trying to chase down about how London is losing it's charm.- especially Chelsea.



> Five London pubs close a week
> By Elizabeth Hopkirk, Evening Standard 14.02.07
> Add your view
> 
> ...


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/resta...ails/Five+London+pubs+close+a+week/article.do

The interesting aspect is that pubs are not closing in areas of London that are part of landed estates ( historical holding by lords ) where there are no freeholds.

The estate leases the property as I feel all municipalities should so value is based on structure not land.

As the character of the lease estate remains strong the value of the rents in that area will go up as it becomes a more desirable location and also current leasees can put $$ into structure not land costs.

I met two brothers - one in his 20s one a bit older...they thought nothing of the fact that they had a mortgage on their flat of 550,000 POUNDS!!!!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Here's to hoping I can find a decent place under 500k in Burnaby... or New Westminster... or Coquitlam...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

dona83 said:


> Here's to hoping I can find a decent place under 500k in Burnaby... or New Westminster... or Coquitlam...


Or Yahk...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Short memories.....1982, 1992 

what goes up...including economies........

•••••

One action being taken



> This Affordable Housing Would Stay Affordable
> 
> By CAITLIN KELLY
> Published: April 15, 2007
> ...


The social impact of high land costs is devastating.

Moving farther out just increases sprawl, wastes energy and farmland. Sad spirals and look at the vested interests that benefit. 

In my view municipalities need control of the land and the market based on structure value.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

These projects look more to me like a subsidy for businesses to keep low-cost labour nearby.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Though some of your ideas have merit, to my way of thinking they call for too much intervention in the marketplace and too much regulation by government institutions (themselves hardly immune from nasty bureaucratic bloat and plain old corruption) to really work as intended.

Rather than invigorate it, it could end up stifling the economy. Remove foreign ownership of commercial real estate concerns in a hurry and there'd be a tremendous series of crashes; I think the cure could be worse than the disease.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I think it would be better for Canadians if you had to be a Canadian to own any property here, including commercial real estate. With commerical real estate, it should be a requirement to initially purchase the land, that you actually run the business on it.


Very Swiss Canton style.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Destroying value is generally a bad option. If foreigners, who have no voting rights, value our land more than us, that should be a message. They trust in our prosperity.

If cost is the focus, it is better to tax the value than to use laws to destroy it. Take the tax revenues and "do good".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> it is better to tax the value than to use laws to destroy it. Take the tax revenues and "do good".


Yes tax policy as with interest rate policy can smooth out bumps and crashes.
Tax policy in particular can offer carrot and stick combinations to meet planning goals for development type while still offering income streams to investors.

I have little issue with foreign investment looking for steady returns.....that's the situation I'm in now.
Hong Kong investor - renting is his biz - he offers me good value...he's not flipping properties...he wants an income stream from this structure.

It's the cities having planning and tax base control I'm more on about.
Also there is nothing preventing foreign *structure ownership and income stream while the municipality controls the freehold lease.
They are not incompatible.*


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Many people are quick to think they are making big money on their homes due to the jump in real estate prices in the past few years.
> 
> I stopped to consider my own situation and when you weigh it all up, there is not a lot of profit left. For example, we paid $100,000 for our home 19 years ago.
> 
> ...


Look at the bright side... essentially you have stayed in that house for free at this point if you were to sell today.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The estate leases the property as I feel all municipalities should so value is based on structure not land.
> 
> As the character of the lease estate remains strong the value of the rents in that area will go up as it becomes a more desirable location and also current leasees can put $$ into structure not land costs.
> 
> I met two brothers - one in his 20s one a bit older...they thought nothing of the fact that they had a mortgage on their flat of 550,000 POUNDS!!!!


Hardly a perfect system. This system created massive problems in England. 

In fact, my father personally created a couple organizations to fight this system. The fight was the Coalition Against Residential Leasehold Abuse (CARLA) and it's successor CARL, Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold home page.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: Good for your PA! I would have helped him. I favbour property ownership by individuals. If I just "leased" my property from the city, I could only imagine the insane abuses that would occur.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Vandave: Good for your PA! I would have helped him. I favbour property ownership by individuals. If I just "leased" my property from the city, I could only imagine the insane abuses that would occur.


Lots of interesting side stories with that. They eventually were able to implement significant changes to legislation.

What MacDoc doesn't understand is that the free market will still win out, whether you try to supress it or not. Location has a value to people and business. They will pay for it one way or the other. I prefer the system to be open and visible for all to see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Location has a value to people and business. They will pay for it one way or the other. I prefer the system to be open and visible for all to see.


Rent-controlled Toronto was hungry for "key money."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Look at the bright side... essentially you have stayed in that house for free at this point if you were to sell today.


Oh I realize that and consider it a good thing. I am not complaining, just trying to point out that profit on home ownership is not a sure thing.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Japan, Korea, etc. doesn't allow foreign property ownership.

Buying a $500k house, our (g/f and I) mortgage at $2900/mo is going to be 60% of our gross income. Factor in property taxes, hydro, and gas, and that number jumps to $3500/mo to 76%. We're going to be counting on rental income of a secondary suite to pay for the house and we'll still have $10k a year to save after all living expenses unless we decide to get a car. Anyone else in this situation? Will the bank allow this disgustingly high debt and living ratio if we can prove we can make it work?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Japan, Korea, etc. doesn't allow foreign property ownership.
> 
> Buying a $500k house, our (g/f and I) mortgage at $2900/mo is going to be 60% of our gross income. Factor in property taxes, hydro, and gas, and that number jumps to $3500/mo to 76%. We're going to be counting on rental income of a secondary suite to pay for the house and we'll still have $10k a year to save after all living expenses unless we decide to get a car. Anyone else in this situation? Will the bank allow this disgustingly high debt and living ratio if we can prove we can make it work?


According to CMHC:

Typical loan qualification criteria requires that borrowers spend no more than 32% of their gross income (Gross Debt Service Ratio or GDSR) on shelter financial obligations including mortgage payments, taxes, utilities & half of condo fees. In addition, borrowers should spend no more than an additional 8% to 10% (Total Debt Service Ratio or TDSR = 40% to 42%) of their gross income on all other financial obligation including personal loans, car loans, credit cards and other debts. The calculation therefore assumes the total of all non-shelter financial obligations will not exceed ????? or an additional 8% of the required household income.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah sure - free market. 

Just love what the "free market" did to Japan.

Funny how well Hong Kong did with leases - Canberra too.
Canberra has no freeholds and also has a buoyant market and is able to plan.

The heart of the idea of control of municipal lands



> Public leasehold of land in the ACT was provided by The Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 which states in s9 that 'no Crown lands in the territory shall be sold or disposed of for any estate of freehold'.
> 
> In 1989 the ACT became self-governing. The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 provides for land within the ACT to be 'national' land or 'territory' land. Section 29 states that the ACT Executive is responsible for the management of territory land on behalf of the Commonwealth. Section 29(3) provides that the term of an estate in territory land granted on and after self-government (11 May 1989) 'shall not exceed 99 years or such longer period as is prescribed, but the estate may be renewed'.
> 
> ...


http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1997-98/98bd135.htm

Same reasoning holds in spades now with heavy urban increases, need for widescale planning to increase density and lower environment footprint.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wouldn't a link suffice instead of all that text that people don't have time to read anyway?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah sure - free market.


Commie. tptptptp


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Face it MacDoc, free market capitalism has won. We're no longer behind walls...globalization is here to stay. Kyoto is dead, China surpasses the US in GHG emmissions...Toronto housing prices continue to rise.:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Face it MacDoc, free market capitalism has won. We're no longer behind walls...globalization is here to stay. Kyoto is dead, China surpasses the US in GHG emmissions...Toronto housing prices continue to rise.:lmao:


:clap: :clap:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Like it or hate it, the free market is a powerful thing. It's like water - it finds its own level.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Max said:


> Like it or hate it, the free market is a powerful thing. It's like water - it finds its own level.


If it were a truly *free* market, one could understand and deal with it, but the market is not free - there are too many 'adjustments', subsidies, regulations (whatever you want to call them), rules change constantly, etc.

Like *water*, it overwhelms and drowns the less privileged.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Very well said! Points out the problems inherent in glib analogies and metaphors.

Though I agree that the market is not entirely "free," I also believe that too many shackles on an economy is a great prescription for bad government and an unhappy populace. All in all, I would rather we err on the side of too little regulation than too much... but yes, there are some serious issues for either swing of the pendulum.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I've long said, you are not buying the house, you are buying how much someone else wants to live there. I lucked out on my house--bought it for 462,000, sold it less than 3 years later for 575,000. (Wasn't intending to be a flip, but life changes.) 

Pay for the structure but not the land, you say. That sort of eliminates the value of location, doesn't it?

There is nothing particularly valuable about one cookie-cutter house/condo vs. the next, except for location. How does one value that without taking the land into account?

Particularly for some types of commercial property--retail stores, restaurants, some offices, etc.

If one can only buy a commercial property if you are running a business on that site, how do apartment buildings factor into that? I run the business of renting living space... but I don't live there. Plus there are economic advantages to managing several properties at once--you have the volume to negotiate for cheaper grounds maintenance, discounts on major renovations, etc. 

A single commercial owner/operator does not have that.

BTW, you might like this. I'm seeing lots of signs for large condo towers to be build on top of large low-rise structures like plazas. It's that mixed use you talked about. Though one odd one is building on top of the Hummingbird Centre.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

rgray said:


> Like *water*, it overwhelms and drowns the less privileged.


Learning to swim helps, learning to swim against the current helps more.



> When I was growing up, my parents told me, "Finish your dinner. People in China and India are starving." I tell my daughters, "Finish your homework. People in India and China are starving for your job."
> 
> --Thomas Freedman


Welcome to grobalization 3.0  

The supply chain rules...

Wired Interview:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/friedman.html

(link button won't work...so full URL)


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't pretend to know the first thing about home ownership, but with the average price in Victoria creeping to a half million, I've had to seriously think of whether I'd buy or rent.

I came across a Buy/Rent calculator at the New York Times website, put in my numbers, and unless you are putting in a significant amount of a down payment, and currently paying over $2000 a month in rent, the calculator says don't bother buying.

Give it a try:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/b...tml?ex=1177732800&en=130ba5207ce7376e&ei=5070


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

jicon said:


> I don't pretend to know the first thing about home ownership, but with the average price in Victoria creeping to a half million, I've had to seriously think of whether I'd buy or rent.
> 
> I came across a Buy/Rent calculator at the New York Times website, put in my numbers, and unless you are putting in a significant amount of a down payment, and currently paying over $2000 a month in rent, the calculator says don't bother buying.
> 
> ...


Interesting calculator. I like the way it shows how long it takes to reach a point where owneship is more advantageous than renting. 

Because housing prices are not quite so steep in Montreal, the exercise suggests I'd reach that point in about 15-20 years, depending on how I tweak certain assumptions. That sounds just about right -- right around the time I should be thinking of early retirement.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

to answer the original question, home prices around the world have risen dramatically over the last 5-6 years due to central banks around the world keeping interest rates at historically low levels.

housing hasn't been the only area affected by low interest rates. consumer debt, stock market valuations, and real inflation (not the 'core' B.S.) are at crazy levels right now.

look what happened in the U.S. last year. as soon as rates rose, housing became unaffordable again and the market crashed.

i cribbed this comment from the globe this morning (it was from the puff piece about David Dodge's impending retirement), because, despite the hyperbole, it is pretty much in line with my thinking. sorry about the length:



> Tax me! I'm Canadian : from Canada writes: :
> "The 63-year-old, known for his relentless drive to make Canadians understand more about economics and monetary policy, will wind up his seven-year tenure at the end of January, 2008."
> 
> Relentless drive to make us understand?
> ...


----------



## Dick Hertz (Mar 29, 2007)

*Quit breeding ourselves into oblivion/obliteration!*

To me, a big part of the solution is for people to stop having kids. We don't live in an agrarian, labor-intensive economy anymore. In fact, the number of people needed for jobs is declining, not increasing. Therefore, anyone who has a family, much less a large one, is doing nothing more than contributing to the race to the bottom we currently find ourselves in. Don't believe me? Read up on Marx's theory about the "reserve army of unemployed workers." 

The simple fact is that we don't need as many people now. Fewer people means less demand for housing, especially single family homes, and eventually lower prices for them. I seriously pine for the day when people can shake off the desire to make carbon copies of themselves to trot around and show off. "Hey, look at what my genes created!"

Besides, having a child is about the most environmentally unfriendly choice one can make. On the Wal-Mart thread, a poster with a three-year-old made a point about how his kid's shoes don't last very long. Where do they end up? That's right - a landfill! Of course, each of these families also needs an SUV to run their kids all over the place, spewing globe-heating CO2 in the process. Then the kids are going to each want an SUV or two, then they breed and each of their brats want three SUVs . . .


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Dude... you don't have kids... am I right?

LOL


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Dick Hertz said:


> To me, a big part of the solution is for people to stop having kids. We don't live in an agrarian, labor-intensive economy anymore. In fact, the number of people needed for jobs is declining, not increasing. Therefore, anyone who has a family, much less a large one, is doing nothing more than contributing to the race to the bottom we currently find ourselves in. Don't believe me? Read up on Marx's theory about the "reserve army of unemployed workers."
> 
> The simple fact is that we don't need as many people now. Fewer people means less demand for housing, especially single family homes, and eventually lower prices for them. I seriously pine for the day when people can shake off the desire to make carbon copies of themselves to trot around and show off. "Hey, look at what my genes created!"
> 
> Besides, having a child is about the most environmentally unfriendly choice one can make. On the Wal-Mart thread, a poster with a three-year-old made a point about how his kid's shoes don't last very long. Where do they end up? That's right - a landfill! Of course, each of these families also needs an SUV to run their kids all over the place, spewing globe-heating CO2 in the process. Then the kids are going to each want an SUV or two, then they breed and each of their brats want three SUVs . . .


Quite possibly the worst attempt at justifying not to have childern.


----------



## Dick Hertz (Mar 29, 2007)

Max said:


> Dude... you don't have kids... am I right?
> 
> LOL


Only of the four-legged kind. Check out the pictures of her in the pictures forum!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dick Hertz said:


> To me, a big part of the solution is for people to stop having kids.


Not very kindly articulated here, and probably not much to do with housing prices, but truth is population is the planets single biggest problem and underlies most other major issues like pollution, food issues, disease issues, water issues, etc., etc. If we don't conquer the population issue, global warming isn't going to matter.


----------



## Dick Hertz (Mar 29, 2007)

rgray said:


> Not very kindly articulated here, and probably not much to do with housing prices, but truth is population is the planets single biggest problem and underlies most other major issues like pollution, food issues, disease issues, water issues, etc., etc. If we don't conquer the population issue, global warming isn't going to matter.


Preach on, brother! And it's only going to get worse when all of the people in "developing" countries decide they want to live at First World standards. I read a study that it would take approximately four planet Earths to provide all of the resources for that to happen.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I disagree, guys. I am of the belief that the planet could sustain many more humans than there are alive on the planet right now. We'd have to learn two things: how to live sustainably so as to minimize our footprint on the Earth, our shared ecosystem, and we'd have to learn how to put aside our differences and learn to truly cooperate. If there were less friction between nations, religions and persuasions we'd probably find earth to be an extremely accommodating home indeed.

Alas, because of our belligerent nature, we are more apt to wage war than get along. But _technically_ this ball in space could support many more billions of us. We just don't want to make the sacrifices and (attain the level of achievement) that would require.

By the way, I have no science to back up this hunch of mine. It's just that - a hunch.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> By the way, I have no science to back up this hunch of mine. It's just that - a hunch.


I agree with your hunch. The carrying capacity of the planet is generally "locked down" by looking at either environmental degradation as a sort 0/1 binary thing or, recalling some "scary" graphs used to brainwash children, food supply and population curves crossing each other. 

Outside of world wars or particular damaging viruses, it is beginning to look like the population may peak and reduce through growing wealth. People in wealthier nations have fewer kids...may have something to do with alternative retirement planning and work-life balances (retirement not dependent upon kids; family wealth and earnings negatively impacted by kids) as well as education and empowerment of women.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Max said:


> Dude... you don't have kids... am I right?
> 
> LOL


He's Dick Hertz, all attempts to have kids have been nothing but painful so in jealousy he's trying to talk to the rest of us out of it. Poor guy.


----------



## Dick Hertz (Mar 29, 2007)

dona83 said:


> He's Dick Hertz, all attempts to have kids have been nothing but painful so in jealousy he's trying to talk to the rest of us out of it. Poor guy.


Well, the procedure to assure no kids was a bit painful, but at least I got some Happy Pills outta the deal. Eh, I figure I'll adopt in the unlikely event that I change my mind. In the meantime, I'll enjoy the freedom and extra money that being childfree entails.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"Outside of world wars or particular damaging viruses, it is beginning to look like the population may peak and reduce through growing wealth. People in wealthier nations have fewer kids...may have something to do with alternative retirement planning and work-life balances (retirement not dependent upon kids; family wealth and earnings negatively impacted by kids) as well as education and empowerment of women."

Agreed that more people becoming relatively wealthy would ameliorate things and probably reduce the pressure to have kids as "economic engines" you can grow in your own home. I remain concerned that, over the next several decades at least, severe and widespread climate change will make it exceedingly difficult for nations to achieve that higher standard of living... which in turn would likely encourage war.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Dick Hertz said:


> To me, a big part of the solution is for people to stop having kids...


Maybe true in some parts of the world, but in Canada the fertility rate is lower than the replacement rate and we are faced with a labour shortage that will only get worse now that the baby boomers are approaching retirement age.


Dick Hertz said:


> Max said:
> 
> 
> > Dude... you don't have kids... am I right?
> ...


I have a couple of cats as well - including a tabby that looks just like yours. But I wouldn't compare them to kids. Pets != Children


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Sonal said:


> I've long said, you are not buying the house, you are buying how much someone else wants to live there.


Well put!

I expand your description to "you are buying how much someone else wants to live there, or how much some speculator things the price will increase."


----------

