3 ms·

Real-estate (in addition to associated construction) is bigger for than mining and oil: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/gdps04a-eng.

Real-estate (in addition to associated construction) is bigger for than mining and oil: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/gdps04a-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/g...

mmt 8y ago
But can one really count that, at least in the context of how the people understand where their money really comes from? Consider the adage, "Buy land: they don't make it any more." A growth in the value of land isn't, in and of itself, an actual product, though I do agree the construction is. However, how much of that construction is actually in service of a different industry (i.e. would never have happened but for, say, mining and oil)? Similarly, how much of that real estate value would drop to approximately zero if the industries supporting it disappeared? I'm sure there's some construction, especially residential, that must be happening just due to population growth, but I'm skeptical if that accounts for even a majority of that number.
- christocracy 8y ago
  Certainly not all that construction is related to real-estate. Still real-estate as a % of GDP eclipses "mining, Oil & Gas". http://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-gdp-canadian-imports-and-exports/ http://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-gdp-canadian-imports...
  - mmt 8y ago
    My point is that a chart like that doesn't even hint at how much of that "real estate" activity is a direct result of the needs of "conservative" industries. It certainly stands to reason that something like resource extraction is not just land-intensive but is intensive in changes to land ownership/tenancy. I'm pretty confident that someone who, according to that chart, is in the "real estate" industry who works selling houses in newly-built mining towns knows full well what industry really supplies his income.
    - christocracy 8y ago
      I'm pretty confident that residential real-estate activity (people selling houses to each other) in major urban centres (eg: YVR, GTA) eclipses that of mining towns.
      - mmt 8y ago
        That may well be true, but it's just not detailed in those charts. A very brief search resulted in this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/607742/gdp-of-manitoba-canada-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/607742/gdp-of-manitoba-c... If that's accurate, it suggests that Manitoba, which, though known as more agricultural and manufacturing rather than mining, has the same pattern of "real estate" accounting for individual income. Of course, the significant majority of the population is in Winnipeg, but I don't think that qualifies it as a major, on the same scale as Vancouver or Toronto. Again, I think that even real estate "industry" workers in Winnipeg know their money really comes from manufacturing, just as the ones in Edmonton know their money really comes from oil. Maybe in the major cities you mention it's not so obvious, but "real estate" still fails to eclipse the sum of all the industries that actually produce something (manufacturing, resource extraction, construction).
        christocracy 8y ago
        AMA about Manitoba: I was born there. If resisdential RE tanks in Canada, a real possibility with rising interests rate and extreme debt levels, the economy goes down with it. Mining / Oil & Gas isn’t going to save it.
        mmt 8y ago
        I think you're conflating the value of the real estate property itself with the GDP from the "industry", which has to do with property changing hands or tenancy. (Those charts also fail to show how much of that income is from residential transactions/management versus commercial ones.) It just doesn't stand to reason that if people entirely stop paying other people to buy and sell each other houses (even if it does account for the vast majority of that 13% of the GDP) that the economy would collapse completely. However, if housing values collapse due to questionable (or worse) lending practices, as happened in the US around 2008, could collapse the financial system and thereby the economy. It might even increase the GDP of the real estate category, especially as a percentage, at the expense of the finance category. More importantly, though, I don't think there are any voters that buy the notion that they could, for example, do away with their real industry, such as mining or manufacturing, and replace it entirely with selling each other their houses. Because of that, whatever conservatism they may hold would remain from that real industry, regardless of what category the statisticians put their income in.

mmt 8y ago

But can one really count that, at least in the context of how the people understand where their money really comes from? Consider the adage, "Buy land: they don't make it any more." A growth in the value of land isn't, in and of itself, an actual product, though I do agree the construction is. However, how much of that construction is actually in service of a different industry (i.e. would never have happened but for, say, mining and oil)? Similarly, how much of that real estate value would drop to approximately zero if the industries supporting it disappeared? I'm sure there's some construction, especially residential, that must be happening just due to population growth, but I'm skeptical if that accounts for even a majority of that number.

christocracy 8y ago
Certainly not all that construction is related to real-estate. Still real-estate as a % of GDP eclipses "mining, Oil & Gas". http://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-gdp-canadian-imports-and-exports/ http://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-gdp-canadian-imports...
- mmt 8y ago
  My point is that a chart like that doesn't even hint at how much of that "real estate" activity is a direct result of the needs of "conservative" industries. It certainly stands to reason that something like resource extraction is not just land-intensive but is intensive in changes to land ownership/tenancy. I'm pretty confident that someone who, according to that chart, is in the "real estate" industry who works selling houses in newly-built mining towns knows full well what industry really supplies his income.
  - christocracy 8y ago
    I'm pretty confident that residential real-estate activity (people selling houses to each other) in major urban centres (eg: YVR, GTA) eclipses that of mining towns.
    - mmt 8y ago
      That may well be true, but it's just not detailed in those charts. A very brief search resulted in this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/607742/gdp-of-manitoba-canada-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/607742/gdp-of-manitoba-c... If that's accurate, it suggests that Manitoba, which, though known as more agricultural and manufacturing rather than mining, has the same pattern of "real estate" accounting for individual income. Of course, the significant majority of the population is in Winnipeg, but I don't think that qualifies it as a major, on the same scale as Vancouver or Toronto. Again, I think that even real estate "industry" workers in Winnipeg know their money really comes from manufacturing, just as the ones in Edmonton know their money really comes from oil. Maybe in the major cities you mention it's not so obvious, but "real estate" still fails to eclipse the sum of all the industries that actually produce something (manufacturing, resource extraction, construction).
      - christocracy 8y ago
        AMA about Manitoba: I was born there. If resisdential RE tanks in Canada, a real possibility with rising interests rate and extreme debt levels, the economy goes down with it. Mining / Oil & Gas isn’t going to save it.
        mmt 8y ago
        I think you're conflating the value of the real estate property itself with the GDP from the "industry", which has to do with property changing hands or tenancy. (Those charts also fail to show how much of that income is from residential transactions/management versus commercial ones.) It just doesn't stand to reason that if people entirely stop paying other people to buy and sell each other houses (even if it does account for the vast majority of that 13% of the GDP) that the economy would collapse completely. However, if housing values collapse due to questionable (or worse) lending practices, as happened in the US around 2008, could collapse the financial system and thereby the economy. It might even increase the GDP of the real estate category, especially as a percentage, at the expense of the finance category. More importantly, though, I don't think there are any voters that buy the notion that they could, for example, do away with their real industry, such as mining or manufacturing, and replace it entirely with selling each other their houses. Because of that, whatever conservatism they may hold would remain from that real industry, regardless of what category the statisticians put their income in.