4 ms·

Well of course there is a generational divide and it's a great thing and exactly what one should expect. Someone who is 60 years old has had approximately 30-3

by Kranar 6y ago

Well of course there is a generational divide and it's a great thing and exactly what one should expect. Someone who is 60 years old has had approximately 30-35 years worth of time to invest and accumulate assets compared to someone 30 years old who has only had 5-10 years worth of time. What would you have expected to see in the alternative?

nicoburns 6y ago
At least in the UK it's a lot more uneven than that. House prices have increased far far above inflation over the 20th century (not entirely evenly). So those who invested in property at low prices are now sitting on large nest eggs, while young people are unable to make similar investments as they are already priced out of the market.
- Kranar 6y ago
  Sure but that's because a house in London is a fundamentally different asset today than it was say 30-40 years ago. I live in Toronto and people in my generation complain about housing prices here as well, that their parents bought a house for super cheap back in the 70s and 80s and now they have no chance to afford anything. What's not discussed is that these cities were much smaller back then, had far fewer services both private and government, had much higher crime and pollution and a host of issues that have all been substantially ameliorated over the decades, specifically the 90s. If people want the experience that their parents had to find cheap housing, then they have to move to a location that is in a similar state today that London or Toronto was in 30 years ago. Those places do exist and there's no shortage of affordable and cheap housing in Canada, many parts of the U.S., and I suspect the UK. The problem is that what people my generation really want are all the benefits that have come over the past 3-4 decades without the cost of paying for those benefits, and that's just not likely to happen.
  - l3v3ll 6y ago
    Right, good luck predicting and buying a house in the next London. Just like my stock pick is going to be the One in 30 years.
  - nikanj 6y ago
    Asking without irony: What place in Canada today would be equal to Toronto in the 1990s?
    - Kranar 6y ago
      1990s? Ottawa, Edmonton, maybe the Waterloo region. But there are also places like Calgary, Winnipeg, London and Halifax that are smaller, much more affordable, and have a decent standard of living. The issue is that if you compare Halifax or Winnipeg to Toronto it's a no brainer that Toronto is just significantly ahead in development, but it's not like people in Halifax are struggling to find work, or are poor or living in bad conditions. There are plenty of good places across Canada to raise a family and enjoy a good standard of living.
    - berkeleyjunk 6y ago
      Montreal is significantly cheaper than Toronto (even though prices have picked up in the past 5 years or so) and would provide something similar to Toronto 90's prices with arguably similar services.

by Kranar 6y ago

nicoburns 6y ago

At least in the UK it's a lot more uneven than that. House prices have increased far far above inflation over the 20th century (not entirely evenly). So those who invested in property at low prices are now sitting on large nest eggs, while young people are unable to make similar investments as they are already priced out of the market.

Kranar 6y ago
Sure but that's because a house in London is a fundamentally different asset today than it was say 30-40 years ago. I live in Toronto and people in my generation complain about housing prices here as well, that their parents bought a house for super cheap back in the 70s and 80s and now they have no chance to afford anything. What's not discussed is that these cities were much smaller back then, had far fewer services both private and government, had much higher crime and pollution and a host of issues that have all been substantially ameliorated over the decades, specifically the 90s. If people want the experience that their parents had to find cheap housing, then they have to move to a location that is in a similar state today that London or Toronto was in 30 years ago. Those places do exist and there's no shortage of affordable and cheap housing in Canada, many parts of the U.S., and I suspect the UK. The problem is that what people my generation really want are all the benefits that have come over the past 3-4 decades without the cost of paying for those benefits, and that's just not likely to happen.
- l3v3ll 6y ago
  Right, good luck predicting and buying a house in the next London. Just like my stock pick is going to be the One in 30 years.
- nikanj 6y ago
  Asking without irony: What place in Canada today would be equal to Toronto in the 1990s?
  - Kranar 6y ago
    1990s? Ottawa, Edmonton, maybe the Waterloo region. But there are also places like Calgary, Winnipeg, London and Halifax that are smaller, much more affordable, and have a decent standard of living. The issue is that if you compare Halifax or Winnipeg to Toronto it's a no brainer that Toronto is just significantly ahead in development, but it's not like people in Halifax are struggling to find work, or are poor or living in bad conditions. There are plenty of good places across Canada to raise a family and enjoy a good standard of living.
  - berkeleyjunk 6y ago
    Montreal is significantly cheaper than Toronto (even though prices have picked up in the past 5 years or so) and would provide something similar to Toronto 90's prices with arguably similar services.