Statistics Canada Reports II

[KnoxfordGuy]

We continue to see growth in NB we haven't seen for over half a century.

Originally Posted by KnoxfordGuy

Q2 2024 population estimates as of April 1st

NS 1,072,545 +.3
NB 850,894 +.6
NFLD 541,391 +.2
PEI 177,081 +.5

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by theman23

Report here:
https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.win...ada_ENG_v6.pdf

Intuitively I have some serious questions about the methodology of this report. The report alleges that 18.2% of homeowners in Canada are in poverty?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Intuitively I have some serious questions about the methodology of this report. The report alleges that 18.2% of homeowners in Canada are in poverty?

You've never heard of being "house poor???"

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You've never heard of being "house poor???"

Did house poor start meaning "poverty" at some point? Surely no one is claiming to be literally impoverished when they're owning Canadian real estate... right?

Also according to this report, my friend who works for Amazon who makes $200k a year but doesn't own a suit (no clothing to attend a special occasion) and blows literally all of his money on car payments, holidays, and mortgage payments on the house he bought for his parents (unable to cover an unexpected expense of $500) is impoverished!

[Build.It]

You know that there are a lot of Canadian home "owners" who are currently hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative equity right? Some markets are down 30% from the peak in 2022. Anyone in the GTA who bought then likely has a massive mortgage payment, saw their house get devalued by 20+% and has a nice mortgage payment increase waiting for them whenever they have to renew. I know numerous people who badly want to move but are financially stuck.

And this doesn't even include all the morons who took out massive HELOCs to pay for cars and boats, their kids wedding, etc..

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Build.It

And this doesn't even include all the morons who took out massive HELOCs to pay for cars and boats, their kids wedding, etc..

And we're calling these people impoverished...? I mean, I guess okay, it must suck to be so poor that you have access to massive financing...

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by chowhou

And we're calling these people impoverished...? I mean, I guess okay, it must suck to be so poor that you have access to massive financing...

They are still financially screwed, and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

If the vast majority of your income goes to mortgage payments, utilities and necessary home maintenance, and you can't make ends meet unless you use the food bank, then, in some ersatz sense, yes, you are impoverished.

Thanks JT............

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Intuitively I have some serious questions about the methodology of this report. The report alleges that 18.2% of homeowners in Canada are in poverty?

Without getting too far into the details of the methodology, it's value seems to be that it's an international standard; and therefore can be used for comparisons between countries in a way that our Canadian-specific poverty calculation cannot.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by chowhou

And we're calling these people impoverished...? I mean, I guess okay, it must suck to be so poor that you have access to massive financing...

As Build.It points out, if they have negative equity because they bought at the very peak of the bubble in some of the most bubbly markets, they're technically poorer than that sleeping sidewalk zombie over whom you have to step while walking on East Hastings (whose net worth is exactly zero, i.e. lower than anyone with assets, greater than anyone with a negative net worth).

[chowhou]

So to reiterate, we're calling a six figure O&G worker in Fort Mac who own their own house but maxes out their HELOC and blows every paycheck on snowmobiles, truck payments, hookers, and blow impoverished.

I'm pretty happy with the living standards of impoverished Canadians then, I guess.

Originally Posted by lio45

As Build.It points out, if they have negative equity because they bought at the very peak of the bubble in some of the most bubbly markets, they're technically poorer than that sleeping sidewalk zombie over whom you have to step while walking on East Hastings (whose net worth is exactly zero, i.e. lower than anyone with assets, greater than anyone with a negative net worth).

So we're actually suggesting that underwater homeowners are more impoverished than the literal homeless? We're actually doing this? Alrighty then.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

They are still financially screwed, and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

If the vast majority of your income goes to mortgage payments, utilities and necessary home maintenance, and you can't make ends meet unless you use the food bank, then, in some ersatz sense, yes, you are impoverished.

Thanks JT............

"Cash poor" and "negative equity" are very different situations. Only the latter can be called "impoverished". chowhou is correct on that specific point.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

"Cash poor" and "negative equity" are very different situations. Only the latter can be called "impoverished". chowhou is correct on that specific point.

I understand what you are saying, but, in my scenario, the house poor individual is otherwise virtuous, and doesn't blow their pay cheque on "snowmobiles, truck payments, hookers, and blow" as chowhou crudely put it.

They are house poor because of circumstances beyond their control (inflation, increasing mortgage costs, insufficient wage increases, loss of job, etc.) They still need a place to live, but can't really afford it any more. In some ways they are impoverished too, even if they don't fall below the poverty line.

[Build.It]

To be fair the over-leveraged negative equity hom-owner still has the option to declare bankruptcy, return their keys to the bank, and walk away with destroyed credit, but a return to positive cash flow.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Without getting too far into the details of the methodology, it's value seems to be that it's an international standard; and therefore can be used for comparisons between countries in a way that our Canadian-specific poverty calculation cannot.

FYI, they're not using an international standard and MDI is inherently not comparable between countries. The broad concept of MDI seems to be used in Europe, but the actual number crunching is independently developed and shaped for Canada.

From the report itself:

In collaboration with the Environics Institute for Survey Research, we commissioned a two-phased survey of Canadian residents. The Phase One survey asked a representative sample of approximately 2,000 Canadian residents about the goods and services they would expect to find in a household with an acceptable standard of living in this country. Note that we did not ask about “basic necessities.” While too many Canadian residents lack somewhere to live and other core necessities of life, in a country as wealthy as Canada, poverty is about lacking more than the basic necessities. Being able to have friends over for a social visit, having a place where a child can do their homework in peace, and having access to a telephone (or, given the current digital environment, a smartphone and a network) are not “basic necessities” in the strictest sense of the term. However, a household that does not have access to these activities and types of goods and services most likely has a standard of living that falls below what is acceptable in Canada. In other words, the household lives in poverty.

This understanding of poverty is consistent with modern thinking about what it means to be in poverty: Poverty is relative to a country’s overall standard of living. It does not mean only lacking the minimum resources to make it possible to carry on for one more day without physical deterioration.

Frankly, the whole methodology seems designed to classify as many Canadians as possible as impoverished. By this logic it's impossible to eliminate poverty because there will always be people living below the average standard of living, basically by definition.

There's a reason why Canada uses the income based MBM to calculate poverty in Canada.

[Nouvellecosse]

In most cases, poverty is just when people don't have enough resources to cover their basic necessities causing them extended hardship and deprivation. And the thing with housing is that people need a place to live. So if all the available housing is expensive then they have no choice but to pay. And if it takes a huge portion of their income to fulfill this (or any other) basic need leaving them deprived in the rest of their lives then I don't see why that wouldn't qualify as being impoverished. Maybe not absolute poverty, but relative poverty at least. Especially if they need to pay for a large enough place for a family. If there was a country with say, astronomic food costs, and people making what would be decent money here had to part with most of it just to eat, that would be a form of poverty too.

[ssiguy]

I see StatsCan has updated their Canada Pop Clock, Alberta is back down under 4.9 million at least for a few days.

[harls]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I see StatsCan has updated their Canada Pop Clock, Alberta is back down under 4.9 million at least for a few days.

This site is pretty much an algorithm, and makes it interesting for people that stay on it long enough to think something is happening. But no one does that. They check it and take off.

[Centerprovince]

Originally Posted by harls

This site is pretty much an algorithm, and makes it interesting for people that stay on it long enough to think something is happening. But no one does that. They check it and take off.

They make quarterly adjustments when they release the quarterly population estimates.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Centerprovince

They make quarterly adjustments when they release the quarterly population estimates.

I'm sure they do.

I'm just saying a rolling population clock is as about as reliable as when I will take my next piss.

[MonctonRad]

Reposted from the Atlantic Canada Statistics Thread:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Average population growth rate per year (for the last three years):

NS - 36,727
NB - 27,427
NL - 10,876
PE - 8,034

If this growth rate remains stable for the next six years, then this will be the extrapolated populations of the Atlantic provinces in 2030:

NS - 1,299,925
NB - 1,022,452
NL - 608,425
PE - 226,636

TOTAL: 3,157,438