Vancouver remains wealthiest among Canada's major cities

[craneSpotter]

Vancouver remains wealthiest among Canada's major cities

STUART A. THOMPSON
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jul. 16 2012

Vancouver was Canada's wealthiest big city in 2011 while Calgary lagged behind, due in part to fluctuating real estate markets, according to a new study on Canada's net worth.

An average Vancouver household had a net worth around $612,000, compared to $541,000 for Calgary and $542,000 for Toronto. Net worth is defined as the sum of a household's assets, such as real estate and savings, minus their debts, like mortgages and credit cards.

Hmmm...click the link to the article (title) and scroll down - there are maps of 5 Canadian metropolitan areas with wealth increase or decrease by neighborhood.

[Millennium2002]

Something doesn't feel right when the value of some farmland areas are rising by so much... seems like property speculators and developers are trying to force some farmers out by monetary means so they can redevelop it afterwards...

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by craneSpotter

Vancouver remains wealthiest among Canada's major cities

STUART A. THOMPSON
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jul. 16 2012



Hmmm...click the link to the article (title) and scroll down - there are maps of 5 Canadian metropolitan areas with wealth increase or decrease by neighborhood.

This is interesting because Demographia's affordability survey states that Vancouver has an average household income of $63,800. Meanwhile, Calgary averages $91,400 per household and Toronto respectively at $73,600.

http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

It seems to me that Vancouver's overpriced real estate market is the cause of the over inflated statistics found in the Wealthscapes Report.

[twoNeurons]

Wealthy on paper.

[SpongeG]

yup

[craneSpotter]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

This is interesting because Demographia's affordability survey states that Vancouver has an average household income of $63,800. Meanwhile, Calgary averages $91,400 per household and Toronto respectively at $73,600.

http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

It seems to me that Vancouver's overpriced real estate market is the cause of the over inflated statistics found in the Wealthscapes Report.

Ah, you're confusing annual employment income with wealth. Not the same!

You can generate wealth by earning a salary, or by investing in real estate, stocks and bonds or businesses etc.

This is a simple calculation of NET WORTH - assets minus liabilities. Yes, real estate holdings will affect it Holdings in stocks, bonds, RRSPs and cash will also affect it, and, can also swing in value too for that matter All holdings 'on paper' will positively affect it. Mortgages, credit lines and credit card debt will negatively affect it.

The demographia report you reference has nothing to do with wealth. It is a theoretical housing affordability calculation based on many assumtions. BTW, it uses an inflated average house price for metro Vancouver (excludes the more affordable housing in areas like Surrey, Langley). The household incomes they use seem to be a bit strange too (different years?) - the median income they use for Victoria is completely out to lunch LOL!

Median annual household income in Canada by CMA (2006-2010) - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il107a-eng.htm

[trofirhen]

What a surprise. I would have thought Toronto, for sure.

[renthefinn]

Originally Posted by craneSpotter

Ah, you're confusing annual employment income with wealth. Not the same!

You can generate wealth by earning a salary, or by investing in real estate, stocks and bonds or businesses etc.

This is a simple calculation of NET WORTH - assets minus liabilities. Yes, real estate holdings will affect it Holdings in stocks, bonds, RRSPs and cash will also affect it, and, can also swing in value too for that matter All holdings 'on paper' will positively affect it. Mortgages, credit lines and credit card debt will negatively affect it.

The demographia report you reference has nothing to do with wealth. It is a theoretical housing affordability calculation based on many assumtions. BTW, it uses an inflated average house price for metro Vancouver (excludes the more affordable housing in areas like Surrey, Langley). The household incomes they use seem to be a bit strange too (different years?) - the median income they use for Victoria is completely out to lunch LOL!

Median annual household income in Canada by CMA (2006-2010) - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il107a-eng.htm

Not a surprise to see the discrepancies in data collection and processing from Demographia, after all, I do believe that website is a Wendall Cox Creation?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Something doesn't feel right when the value of some farmland areas are rising by so much... seems like property speculators and developers are trying to force some farmers out by monetary means so they can redevelop it afterwards...

Uh yeah, that's how cities get built, bro.

[touraccuracy]

^no, that's how sprawl gets built.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by touraccuracy

^no, that's how sprawl gets built.

You could argue that Vancouver is all sprawl then - it was once all greenspace and farmland at one point yesteryear.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by craneSpotter

Ah, you're confusing annual employment income with wealth. Not the same!

You can generate wealth by earning a salary, or by investing in real estate, stocks and bonds or businesses etc.

This is a simple calculation of NET WORTH - assets minus liabilities. Yes, real estate holdings will affect it Holdings in stocks, bonds, RRSPs and cash will also affect it, and, can also swing in value too for that matter All holdings 'on paper' will positively affect it. Mortgages, credit lines and credit card debt will negatively affect it.

The demographia report you reference has nothing to do with wealth. It is a theoretical housing affordability calculation based on many assumtions. BTW, it uses an inflated average house price for metro Vancouver (excludes the more affordable housing in areas like Surrey, Langley). The household incomes they use seem to be a bit strange too (different years?) - the median income they use for Victoria is completely out to lunch LOL!

Median annual household income in Canada by CMA (2006-2010) - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il107a-eng.htm

Hilarious. So yes... wealthy on paper. House rich, cash poor. In fact, I'd probably guess that on average, Vancouver probably has some of the lowest personal savings and "disposable" income in the province.

It find it interesting that we have so many wealthy people here, yet not a great deal of donations to the arts. You look at a city like Seattle, and it is way ahead when it comes to charitable contributions.

Either Vancouver's wealthy are tight with their cash or most of this wealthy is tied to non-liquid resources.

[Daguy]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Hilarious. So yes... wealthy on paper. House rich, cash poor. In fact, I'd probably guess that on average, Vancouver probably has some of the lowest personal savings and "disposable" income in the province.

It find it interesting that we have so many wealthy people here, yet not a great deal of donations to the arts. You look at a city like Seattle, and it is way ahead when it comes to charitable contributions.

Either Vancouver's wealthy are tight with their cash or most of this wealthy is tied to non-liquid resources.

Totally true. This is the main reason I left Vancouver. I have waaaay more disposable income living in the interior, and I was able to afford a newer detached home with ease. I love Van, but being cooped up in a 1000 sq isn't for me.