We have seen massive amounts added to the money supplies worldwide, along with quantitative easing; this is certainly mitigating the effects of deflation. The current absurdly low cost of credit has had a massive effect, not to mention the fact that banks are attempting to hide an avalanche of deflationary data by not marking their books to market.

As both the cost of fuel and credit has crept up, I’ll be interested to see how the numbers shake out in the next few months.

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/national/Canada+inflation+rate+edges/1708584/story.html

Basically there was a .7 increase from April and flat year over year. Not bad in my opinion considering the worst recession/depression in 80 years, 40%+ loss on the stock market, unemployment over 8%, etc. If that doesn’t knock the wind out of prices, I don’t know what will.

Alberta May Borrow as Much as C$5 Billion, Minister Evans Says

http://tinyurl.com/l8g44l

Jobless rate in quarter of U.S. states hits double digits
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=1713428

Currency intervention ‘an option’: BoC’s Carney
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=1709488

Now I’ve got you all confused too. I realize that you and Jon are different people. I meant to say that you and Jon are both contributing under more than one name.

“I don’t disagree that there are some high paying jobs here. I just wanted to point out that low unemployment does not mean the jobs available are good ones.”

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

This search on saskjobs.ca using “saskatoon and area” and “engineer” produces 32 results, and I’ll admit that I have no idea how many are actually for engineers, but if I were an engineer looking for work this would strike me as a good place to start.

And I just did a search on saskjobs.ca using “Saskatoon” & “Engineer” and got 10 jobs back. Only two of which were for engineers.

I don’t disagree that there are some high paying jobs here. I just wanted to point out that low unemployment does not mean the jobs available are good ones.

It would be great if you guys could pick a handle and stick with it. Makes it a little confusing for everyone but me, and I guess you, to know who is saying what.

McDonalds must be paying well to have moved Saskatchewan to one of the highest income earning provinces over the past few years.

I did a search on saskjobs.ca yesterday using “Saskatoon” and the key word “engineer.” It delivered 37 job offerings.

That’s not to say that your basic argument that prices are too high is wrong.

Low unemployment because of the amount of mcjobs available. Can’t afford an outdated $300,000 bungalow on $10/hour. And chaep housing? Provincially maybe, but not in Saskatoon.

Last I heard, Sask had the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and houses are cheaper here than most provinces.

George,

Speak of the devil. This Recreational Property Report just came out this morning. I find it light on substance but thought I should follow up.

Child tax benefit
Social assistance
EI
Age amount
special scholarships and employment opportunities for first nations only/preferred
hiring quotas where equally qualified women and minorities are preferred
New home buyer’s plan
Graduate tax credit
Renovation tax credit
Dependents deduction

And I know the list goes on, and on, and on… (almost) everyone gets some sort of special treatment, at least at some point in their lives. Some people probably even deserve it. Personally, I just think it makes my tax return way too complicated. If this mortgage assistance program provides someone with motivation to get and keep a job, and to take pride in a property they own, rather than rent, them I’m for it. If it helps someone get their life and that of their family moving in a better direction, I’d rather take on a slightly larger share of the property tax for this program than to pay out for EI, social assistance, and all the costs associated with criminal activity. But I sure hope it’s not just going to be another handout that feeds a culture of entitlement.

How an I putting words in your mouth?

I quoted you, said “really?” and then expressed my view on affordable housing. I ascribed nothing to you outside of your quote and I respect your right to an opinion.

If the city had released more lots and for lower prices a couple of years ago they could have flooded the market, we would have more houses for sale and hence lower prices today. It sounds bad, but what better way to make housing affordable than to make it readily available? Let the market decide how many houses to build.

I’m clueless about recreational property though a guy in my office says he couldn’t sell a cottage to save his life. I’ve got to think that loans have nearly dried up on cottages, wouldn’t you think?

Here’s a report from Remax released June 3.

Ironically, it actually contains the “priced out of the market” line.

Here’s the SP coverage that sounds a tad different.

Royal LePage puts out a recreational property report around this time of the year. If I catch wind of that I’ll see that it’s brought to your attention.

“‘Pushing the price of lots down’ would just shift the entire burden to the tax payer.” True. But doesn’t the city’s latest proposal essentially do the same thing?

No. “Qualifying” projects will have been developed with other commitments having been made, potentially both public and private.