3 ms·
I don't live in Canada, but Toronto has an average housing cost of $1.1 million dollars (USD)[1], which is almost as much as San Francisco (at $1.3 million doll
by cableshaft 3y ago
I don't live in Canada, but Toronto has an average housing cost of $1.1 million dollars (USD)[1], which is almost as much as San Francisco (at $1.3 million dollars)[2].
Meanwhile the average salary in Toronto is $52k USD per year[3], versus San Francisco's average salary of $109k[4].
So that might give you some idea.
[1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-home-sales-1.6802017 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-home-sales-1....
[2]: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/20330/san-francisco-ca/ https://www.zillow.com/home-values/20330/san-francisco-ca/
[3]: https://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Location=Toronto-Ontario/Salary https://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Location=Toronto-Ontari...
[4]: https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=San-Francisco-CA/Salary https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=San-Francisco-...
- mulmen 3y agoI’m more interested in how this happened, not that it is happening.
- 908B64B197 3y agoOut of control immigration. 10x per capita what's allowed in the US, all going to three major cities. Not only that, but when filing out immigration petitions, most firms will actually file in Canada and the US. Workers who can't meet the higher bar for US immigration will be sent to Canada.
- curmudgeon22 3y agoImmigration is actually an interesting one. There is a large amount of immigration for sure, but my understanding is that our economy will be in huge trouble without it. We don't have sufficient birth rates to maintain things and so both economic productivity but also the tax base will be significantly harmed without this immigration. That's not to disagree with your comment, the large amounts of immigration do cause problems and as you say, much of it flows into certain cities.
- 908B64B197 3y ago> We don't have sufficient birth rates to maintain things and so both economic productivity but also the tax base will be significantly harmed without this immigration. With family reunification, it's not uncommon to see aging parents and relatives be sponsored. They add very little to the tax base but are a huge burden long term.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- curmudgeon22 3y agoFair point. I have no data, but assume that's a minority of immigrants. Also, there are some requirements to support those family members: "You will also sign a Sponsorship Agreement, obligating you to financially support your sponsored relatives if they cant provide for their own needs. The new permanent resident will not qualify for government assistance, even after the sponsored person becomes a permanent resident, separates from you, or leaves the country." "To sponsor a parent or grandparent, you must obligate yourself for 20 years of financial support." https://greenlightcanada.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-sponsor-a-family-member-in-canada/ https://greenlightcanada.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-sponso...
- 908B64B197 3y agoDoes government assistance includes healthcare?
- UncleOxidant 3y agoYou need that immigration since the birth rate is below replacement. Without it the Canadian economy would be in worse shape - and there would be higher inflation. Countries with low birthrates that can attract immigrants will be in better shape than countries that restrict immigration.
- 908B64B197 3y agoJapan has been permanently doomed by economists for the same reason since... the 80's and has yet to collapse. Greater productivity and innovation can offset a shrinking population. Canada is facing a huge brain drain to the US, for highly paid and in demand professions like in healthcare and tech. It remains to be seen whether or not they can replace the lost productivity of their native expats with mass immigration.
- BirAdam 3y agoHaving very low interest rates for too long a period of time.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoThat's part of it, but the other part is due to the dearth of building during the great recession and it's aftermath.
- shrimp_emoji 3y agoThe correct answer is the cost of construction and the unwillingness to build more/higher density housing. Construction used to happen a lot more than it does now. Demand keeps increasing, but the supply isn't increasing as fast as it used to. Every homeowner who treats their home as an investment vehicle is game theoretically forced into NIMBYism so that the rich get richer.