Population change in Victoria

As of the 2016 census, 367,770 people called the Victoria Census Metropolitan Area home.  That is up 6.7% or an extra 23,155 people in 5 years.   That rate of increase is a fair bit above the 4.4% increase from 2006 to 2011 so we are growing faster than we used to.

The population breakdown looks like this.

So what if we take a look at how things have changed over the years by age group?

Wow!   A veritable explosion in the seniors population!   Surely this is because Victoria is the best place to retire in Canada.  After hearing about how they’re coming for the last decade, finally they have arrived.  As coverage confirmed, “retirees are the driving force behind the Capital Region’s population spike between 2011 and 2016”.

One more look though before we accept that theory.   Conveniently enough the age groups are divided by 5 years, and censuses are taken ever 5 years as well.   So Victorians who were between 30 and 34 in 2011 were between 35 and 39 in 2016.   That is, if they didn’t move away or croak.   When we advance the ages from 2011 and compare to 2016, the picture looks quite different.

Now we can see why that seniors population exploded.   People who were somewhat less senior in 2011 got a little more senior in 2016.  Funny how that works.  We can see that the differences now are much smaller, so let’s see where the population actually changed and by how much.

What is this graph telling us?   It shows that after taking into account people aging, how much the population in 2016 changed in each age group.  For example:

  1. There was a large increase in people aged 20-24 that is not accounted for by aging.  Part of this is due to the normal university bump, and the other part of it is due to growth at UVic (largely by international students) and Camosun.   An interesting secondary here is that aging the university bump did not result in a negative in the 25-29 group.   Possibly evidence of more people staying in Victoria after university?  Needs more investigation.
  2. There was a moderate increase in working adults between 35 and 65.   Perhaps coming here for tech and construction jobs?  Or returning from Alberta?
  3. The number of people between 70 and 74 stayed about the same.   What does this mean?  Some people who were 65-69 in 2011 died in those 5 years and some moved away.   A few also moved here, but it wasn’t enough to prevent a small decline in that age group.
  4. The number of people over 75 declined sharply.   This makes sense because with increasing age mortality increases, and there aren’t enough 75+ people moving here to make up the difference.

In conclusion, the driving force behind capital region population increases between 2011 and 2016 is not seniors but rather university students and working age adults primarily between the ages of 35 and 50.

So far there is little evidence of a mass retiree migration to Victoria with only an additional 950 people ages 60-69 that are not explained by the population aging in place.  However, as Patrick pointed out in the comments these 950 people are not the number of people that moved here but rather the net difference after taking into account aging.   That is, from 2011 to 2016:

People moving to Victoria aged 60-69 MINUS people moving away in that age group MINUS people dying in that age group = 950

So the people that moved to Victoria in those 5 years is definitely significantly more than 950.  We can’t measure the people moving away so the best we can get is net migration (people moving here minus people moving away).   To get there we need an estimate for how many residents died in those 5 years.   Based on actuarial tables, that should be just under 3% of the 55-64 year olds that lived here in 2011, or 1565 people.   Therefore net migration in the 60-69 age group between 2011 and 2016 is approximately 2515 people or about 500 per year.    I’ll publish a followup article that takes into account mortality across the range to conclusively identify the largest group of newcomers to the region.

Log in or Register

55 thoughts on “Population change in Victoria

  1. @ Barrister:

    I have asked you before, give me some examples of cities where more high density has lead to a major drop in housing costs?

    Why should I give you examples? I have never said that “more high density has lead to a major drop in housing costs.”

    What I do say is that house prices in Victoria, especially the core, are substantially determined by land prices and that the price of a lot will be lower than it would otherwise be if zoning bylaws are changed to allow higher densities. In turn, lower lot prices (relative to what they would otherwise have been) will mean more new houses are built, which means that new houses will be cheaper than they would have otherwise have been.

    But inasmuch as city house prices are driven in part by an influx of outsiders, then rising prices could well coincide with zoning changes to allow greater subdivision of land and increases in home prices.

    Conversely, if the population of a city is collapsing due to a loss of industry, an outbreak of plague or whatever, then a reduction in available building land, as in Detroit, where abandoned subdivisions are being converted to farmland, may nevertheless be accompanied by falling house prices.

    Cities generally increase in density as they increasie in population. So increasing density will tend to be associated with increased home prices, partly for the reason that JD stated at 9.55 am. But unless you wish to strangle the economy of a city, you need to allow population growth without massive home price increases, which means, among other measures, increasing housing density.

    New York, got to have a GDP greater than that of Canada by, in part, keeping housing costs down, for example, by subsidizing development of low cost housing.

    The idea that greater Victoria cannot achieve huge increases in density is absurd. At noon today I was at the top of Mt. Manuel Quimper with a view all the way from Sooke to the Parliament Buildings. The intervening land is virtually all rubbish: not just hills and hollows, but humps and mumps, impossible hillsides and dismal sloughs. What use is it? As low productivity forest land it is of minimal value. As recreational land it is not the best that BC has to offer and thus lacks potential for development as a world class resort area. So all it’s good for is growing people.

    But for God’s sake, not like Broadmead, with three houses to the acre. Let’s set aside a dozen areas of 50 to 100 hectares and develop them at high density to create villages of five to ten thousand souls, each village with a soul of its own, i.e., shops, churches, schools, etc. plus vast areas of wilderness park around them and with some kind of rapid transit, maybe hyperloops, connecting the villages to one another and with Downtown Langford and Sooke, leaving Victoria’s core to subside into seedy irrelevance.

  2. “I’ll publish a followup article that takes into account mortality across the range to conclusively identify the largest group of newcomers to the region.”

    Leo,
    Thank you for your update and replies. I look forward to any followup articles, and thank you in general for the great work that you do on this blog.

  3. Most likely better (statscan) data is here for actuarial tables for BC specifically. BC has the highest life expectancy of all the provinces. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/160519/dq160519c-eng.htm

    And Patrick I think you are correct. I calculated the survival probability incorrectly for the 65-69 cohort. Rather than taking the probability of survival (px) at 67 and raising that to the fifth, it should be px(67)px(68)px(69)px(70)px(71) applied to the cohort for a better estimate (still not perfect but closer).

    With that I get 93.8% of 65-69 year olds surviving for 5 years. So that would be 1124 deaths, and 949 net migration in that age group. Still significantly less than the 40-44 year olds though.

    Everyone bored to tears yet?

  4. Doesn’t DOM typically increase over the summer?

    Yes, it is normally highly seasonal, although 2016 was an exception.

    2017 is also consistently low for the whole market, although certain market segments (SFH) are rising now.

  5. We are now into “I bet” speculation.

    That was just an aside as a comment on the death rates in Victoria. I am using Canadian actuarial tables which don’t take this into account so the “I bet” was just based on how death rates vary in a population, it did not affect the numbers in the calculation.

    A well educated person might live a year longer, but that’s over a lifespan of 80 years.

    The US data on income found lifespan differences of 10-15 years for high vs low income. It’s a big factor. Doesn’t matter though, we’re not getting into those kinds of things for this calculation.

    Also I disagree with your calculations based on mortality tables but I’ll leave it at that.

    To be completely correct you would have to estimate the number of people at each exact age and then calculate the combined probability of death for their 5 years. So 65-70, 66-71, etc. However I believe you will end up with almost identical results. You have to consider that in that age group there are fewer people the older you go as well. Maybe a real economist can check my assumptions there.

    which is the the numbers of senior population of Victoria is staying the same or increasing.

    Up to about their early 70s, then they drop quickly. Makes sense, can’t see too many people moving here past that age anyway.

    That is a remarkable statistic – unmatched anywhere in Canada.

    Really? How can you make that claim? Not saying it’s not true, it could be, but the obvious test would be to examine other retirement destinations like the Okanagan to verify this.

    People assume that senior (boomer) populations numbers will fall due to mortality, and they will sell their homes. Your data doesn’t support that, and show the numbers constant up to age 74.

    I’m not sure if anyone was really expecting people to start selling homes en masse much before that age. Whether it will take 18 years for the number of boomers in Victoria to peak is another matter that requires a separate analysis. Good idea to look into though.
    The point of this article was not to get into whether the data is bullish or bearish. It may very well be bullish that more working age people are coming here. Those are the people with more house buying time ahead of them. I just wanted to look into whether the claim that the jump in population was due to seniors moving here held up.

    Anyway, thanks for prodding further, you make excellent points.

  6. “The average and median both peaked and have been increasing for the last 3 months. Currently they are at 26 and 17 respectively which is putting an end to bidding wars and blind auctions.”

    Doesn’t DOM typically increase over the summer? Though I agree there does seem to be less craziness to the market than several months back.

  7. “I would bet that Victoria seniors are both better educated and wealthier than the canadian mean, both of which lead to longer lifespans”

    I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

    We are now into “I bet” speculation. I don’t expect a huge difference in lifespan but you can “bet” whatever you want. A well educated person might live a year longer, but that’s over a lifespan of 80 years. It’s not going to make a measurable difference comparing a five year cohort. Also I disagree with your calculations based on mortality tables but I’ll leave it at that.

    Anyway, the important data point to me is something that you noticed too, but didn’t explain, which is the the numbers of senior population of Victoria is staying the same or increasing. You don’t need actuarial tables to tell you that enough seniors are migrating in to Victoria to match the number that are dying – just look at your own posted data. That is a remarkable statistic – unmatched anywhere in Canada.

    It also has very practical implications for a real estate blog. People assume that senior (boomer) populations numbers will fall due to mortality, and they will sell their homes. Your data doesn’t support that, and show the numbers constant up to age 74. Peak boomer age is 56 now, so that’s 18 years before boomer numbers will start falling in Victoria if these trends hold up.

  8. All I know is that no matter the demography it’s bearish if you’re a bear and bullish for normal people.

  9. I said it was 7% chance of dying in 5 years for a 60-69 year old, not 14%.

    Sorry, my bad.

    I see a 5% five year mortality for that 55-64 group, not 3%.

    We are using different actuarial tables. You are using the US ones, I’m using Canadian ones. Note that life expectancy is longer in Canada so for example probability of death at age 60 is 1.1354% in the US table vs 0.628% in the Canadian table.
    Also consider that these are values for the entire population. I would bet that Victoria seniors are both better educated and wealthier than the canadian mean, both of which lead to longer lifespans, so even the Canadian mortality stats are probably overestimating the death rate.
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/for-life-expectancy-money-matters/
    http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2013/us-educational-attainment-mortality.aspx

    Taking a look at those people who were 70-74 in 2016. They are made up of 65-69 year old locals that didn’t die, and the net of migration in those 5 years.

    There were 18,025 65-69 year olds in 2011 (8,680 males and 9,350 females).
    I don’t want to calculate out the individual probabilities of death over the 5 years, so let’s take the probability for a 67 year old to die in one year which is:
    0.981% for males and 0.675% for females
    So the chance of that cohort surviving for 5 years is approximately:
    (8680(1-0.00981)^5 + 9350(1-0.00675)^5)/18025 = 17301/18025 = 95.98% or
    4.02% of this population will have died which is 723 people (Edit: this is probably an error, see comment above)

    Therefore:
    18025 locals aged 65-69 in 2011
    – 723 who died in 5 years
    Leaves 17,301 people we should expect to be 70-74 in 2016.
    There were actually 17,850.

    That means net migration was 549 70-74 year olds over 5 years. We can argue semantics if you like I just don’t think this qualifies as mass migration. I’m not quite sure where you got the 26,000 from.

  10. So where are all these old people hiding?

    Because I see a lot more thirty somethings today than a decade ago. When I first moved into my neighborhood it was predominantly retirees. Now it has gentrified with thirty and forty somethings.

    Can anyone tell me of a neighborhood that has more retirees today than it did a decade ago?

  11. Leo,

    Thanks for the reply.

    ))) “so about 3% of people would have died, not 14%.”

    I said it was 7% chance of dying in 5 years for a 60-69 year old, not 14%.
    You’re using age 55-64, which is indeed correct. But looking at the mortality tables (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) , I see a 5% five year mortality for that 55-64 group, not 3%.

    The issue is clearer when you look at the 70-74 age.

    You said…
    “The number of people between 70 and 74 stayed about the same. What does this mean?”

    To me it is more evidence of a mass migration of seniors to Victoria. Because in the age group 65-69 over a five year period, mortality tables (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) tell us that there is a 9% mortality in that group over five years. So that means about 9% extra migration not included in your “population stayed about the same” data happened. That dwarfs the things you did point to, such as working age adults 35 to 50. That represents 9% of 26,000 age 70-74 population, about 2,500 people. That’s more than double any five year cohort of “working age adults primarily between the ages of 35 and 50.” as they had the 35-50 year olds had smaller additions of 1,200 in your data. (About 1,300 if you add in 1% mortality in that group).

  12. Patrick, you are definitely making an excellent point. As shown in the equation a few comments down, the 950 additional people aged 60-69 that we had in 2016 after taking into account aging are the sum of people moving here minus the people moving away, minus the people that died. So yes, the actual number of people moving here in that age group over 5 years is definitely significantly larger than 950. I will update the article to make this clearer.

    Your data shows that there are approximately 50,000 people in the age group 60-69. Actuarial tables (http://www.businessinsider.com/social-security-life-table-charts-2014-3) tell us that 14% of people die in their 60

    This may be correct, but is not relevant. The number you are actually after is how many people who were alive in 2011 aged 55-64 died in 5 years? Looking at mortality tables in that age range it’s about half a percent a year so about 3% of people would have died, not 14%.
    http://mort.soa.org/ViewTable.aspx?&TableIdentity=2790

    So yes, I completely agree that in order to get a complete picture mortality needs to be considered and I can’t actually with certainty claim that a certain group are the largest newcomers without calculating that. A unique part of a retirement destination may be that due to more in-migration the elder population does not decline as quickly as one would expect.

  13. Isn’t it a realtor’s job to get the best price for their client rather than a quick sale?

    Delayed offers can backfire…sometimes you can catch a buyer acting irrationally without a delay. They think they are getting a good deal because they are the first through the front door, but they actually aren’t getting a great deal as a delay wouldn’t have resulted in the price they just paid.

  14. touché

    On CFAX lately, I’ve been hearing an increasing amount of ads relating to debt distress and consolidation. My anecdote for the day.

  15. “So far there is no evidence of a mass retiree migration to Victoria with only an additional 950 people ages 60-69 that are not explained by the population aging in place.,

    Great post, and thanks for all the data. But I respectfully disagree with that conclusion!

    You made a passing mention of mortality being a factor, but then didn’t include actual mortality number estimates in your calculations, and IMO ended up with an incorrect conclusion (no mass migration of 60-69 age group to Victoria during last 5 years) as a result. I think your 950 is off by a factor of more than 4X.

    Your data shows that there are approximately 50,000 people in the age group 60-69. Actuarial tables (http://www.businessinsider.com/social-security-life-table-charts-2014-3) tell us that 14% of people die in their 60,s. So half of those deaths would be in five years. That means 7% of 50k or 3,500 died in that age 60-69 group. You didn’t account for that in your ‘950 people’ migration number, because about 3,500+950 = 4,450 would have migrated to Victoria in that age group – to end up with a overall gain of 950, not 950 migration as you state in your conclusion. That’s a huge migration, 4,450 out of 50,000 about 9% of the 50,000 in that 60-69 age group migrated here during a five year period. No other age group has numbers close to that, so that senior migration is a huge factor IMO.

  16. What is the normal or typical market exposure for a property in Victoria, Saanich East and Oak Bay these days?

    That’s a tricky answer because the days-on-market (DOM) indicator can and is manipulated by blind auctions and re-listing the property to restart the day counter. And should you look at median or average days-on-market?

    By convention the quoted standard is the average DOM and not the median. But it’s interesting to watch both the median and the average relative to what is happening in the market place.,

    Back in the spring, most bulls were giddy with the knowledge that the average and median DOM fell to 16 to 18 days and 8 to 9 respectively from March to May. This was the hot market so many bulls were talking about as the new paradigm for real estate. Multiple offers, bidding wars, blind auction were all they could blog about. For them it was the Chinese and the Vancouverites that were storming Willows beach and Victoria’s home prices would blow past the million dollar mark on their way to match Vancouver prices.

    Seems they were wrong.

    The average and median both peaked and have been increasing for the last 3 months. Currently they are at 26 and 17 respectively which is putting an end to bidding wars and blind auctions.

    A lot of people were caught up by the bullishness about real estate and got burnt in their exuberance to own a piece of the rock by paying over market value. Oh well, they had too much money and needed their wealth shaved a bit.

  17. Zero or five days? It depends on what you consider being on the market. If the property is exclusively listed in the agent’s office for a week so that other agents in the same office get an opportunity to market to their client list is that considered on the market? Or does being on the market mean when it’s listed on the real estate board’s data service to all agents?

    My thought is that the property was already sold when the agent entered the data onto the data system. So we don’t know how long the property was under contract with the agent we only know how long it was on the data service.

  18. “And as Hawk pointed out the half duplex on Holly has dropped to 848K, a shocker given the other half sold for 975K in May.”

    Yikes Ash ! Sounds like there’s going to be a sea of regrets and unhappy neighbors who got swept up in the mania and FOMO.

    Some interesting Sunday morning slashes.

    Seems like every Golden Head listing is on the chopping block. 1450 Simon Rd whacked a mere $30K. With no interior pics and a yard that looks like in need of some major overhaul I say good luck. No wonder the price of land is dropping.

    A second Golden Head’er on slash #2 for a total of $100K off the original price at 4273 Houlihan Pl.

    1739 Bay St a block from the Jube on it’s #2 slash for a total of $35K , now $714,900.

    Even some more “hot” 2 bed, 2 bath condos are under the knife the past day.

    1419 Stadacona Ave , #104, the ex-leaker building slashed $21K.

    935 Cloverdale Ave , #303 in the “hot” Glasgow ghetto area slashed just $10K, but the $30K over asks are nowhere to be seen. Another nasty neighbor war brewing ? 😉

  19. Think you might be right LeoM. I saw it hit my pcs about 5-6 days ago. “Pending date” is showing Aug 14, so I guess it didn’t just sell yesterday?

  20. @LEO M / ASH
    Sometimes a realtor will have already presold a property to a “pocket” client or even the seller through his/her contacts and the property is just listed so the sale is credited to the listing agents volume sales tracked by the real estate board. This way he receives recognition for the sale and is applied to their overall volume for achievement recognition levels, ie gold, platinum, million dollar club etc. If a realtor sells a FSBO (For sale by owner) and it’s not listed he/she doesn’t receive board recognition for the sale.

  21. Ash, I think it was on the market for less than one day, the DOM shows zero; likely just a few hours.

  22. Thanks Ash for the selling price of Scott St.
    I wonder if that would be a conflict of interest if the realtor sold it to a relative a few hours after listing it, instead of waiting a few days for higher bids?

  23. 2642 Scott went for 580K (asking 575K). Would guess it’s a builder who’s going to bulldoze, but you never know, could be just about anyone buying for sub-600K. It was listed 5 days ago but for some reason DOM shows “0”.

    A comparable tear down would be 2665 Belmont which sold in Nov 2016 for 558K (I would personally prefer the Belmont location but that’s just me).

    But my gut feel is that Oaklands has reached its upper limit and could see a bit of softening. 2729 Belmont doesn’t seem to be getting bites at 799K (mind you the pics aren’t flattering). And as Hawk pointed out the half duplex on Holly has dropped to 848K, a shocker given the other half sold for 975K in May. Still waiting to see what 2628 Belmont sold for last month.

    Are other hoods seeing softening as well? I would say so with 2161 Newton St (3 beds on the main) dropping from 959K to 889K. I don’t normally follow N. OB but 889K for that place looks like relatively good value to me.

    BTW LEO this latest post of yours is awesome. If there’s a better housing blog in this country I’d like to see it!

  24. Business Council of British Columbia: Odds rising of a painful housing correction

    …the reality is that hundreds of thousands of Lower Mainland families are saddled with record debt owing to the high cost of home ownership. An economic shock — a sudden jump in unemployment or a spike in interest rates — would deliver a blow to many of these heavily indebted households.

    A sharp housing-market correction would also hurt Metro Vancouver homeowners and could tip the region’s economy into recession. Some economists estimate that a 20 per cent drop in property values would shave at least $100 billion from net worth in Metro Vancouver.

    The history of housing booms around the world suggests that an extraordinary, multi-year run-up in real estate prices, like the one experienced in the Lower Mainland, raises the odds of a subsequent painful market correction.

    And should one occur, many analysts will likely see it as overdue.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/jock-finlayson-odds-rising-of-a-painful-housing-correction-1.22011531

  25. Chinese buyers are starting to disappear from Australia’s property market

    Chinese property buyers are turning away from Australian housing as efforts by regulators in both countries to slow investment begin to bite.

    Chinese buyers, who make up about 80 per cent of all foreign property purchases in Australia, have grown wary after being hit by Beijing’s tightened capital controls, local banks restricting lending and growing fears of an over-supply in the capital city apartment market.

    “It was just 12 months ago that Australia was the hottest thing at Chinese property exhibitions,” said Scott Kirchner, a Shanghai-based director of Beller Group, a real estate agency. “Now Australian developers are not up here pushing projects and Chinese agents have no appetite for Australian property.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-buyers-are-starting-to-disappear-from-australias-property-market-2017-8

  26. They saw the Hawk’s slashes in their hood stacking up and knew it was smart to take the money and run. One of the most over priced hoods out there. War time shacks slapped up.

  27. 2642 SCOTT ST just sold after the realtor listed it for a few hours, no bidding, just a quick sale. Isn’t it a realtor’s job to get the best price for their client rather than a quick sale?

    Does anyone know the sale price?

  28. I did some analyzing yesterday and the average sale price in the Oak Bay, Fairfield, Gonzales, Rockland area listed below $1.5M is selling at about $103,000 over the 2016 assessment value. The average listing price in those same areas under $1.5M are listed at about $197,000 over the 2016 assessment value.
    There was one exceptional sale 1712 Fairfield which sold for $2,200,000 but was assessed at $1,166,000 a large property 113’×168 which obviously sold for land value and probable rezoning. (I did not include extreme sales in my calculation)

  29. However, the cost of living in cities, like Victoria, has recently become atrocious and I would suspect the population increase in the thirty something generation to slow or even reverse.

    I wouldn’t. The trend to congregate in cities isn’t going to stop anytime soon. It’s been going on a long time and it’s not like Victoria is very large yet. I think the increase in rental and affordable housing will help on this front.

  30. Oaklands duplex at 1508 Holly St slashed $50K.

    1716 Albert Ave in the prime Jubilee area slashed a mere $20K to $629K.

    A brand spanking new place slashed a weak $15K at 1705 Haultain St.

    The increase in slashes in this previous hot area the past month or so shows the market continues to grind lower as the buyers now get picky and don’t even low ball them $20K.

    Just like when stocks start to go into a major correction. Buyers back off and the bids get weak but sellers just can’t let go of their potential profits/losses on flipping costs.

  31. It’s the younger generation leaving rural Canada and moving to the cities for higher paying jobs. It’s the lure of $35 to $50 an hour construction jobs in the cities.

    However, the cost of living in cities, like Victoria, has recently become atrocious and I would suspect the population increase in the thirty something generation to slow or even reverse. A comment I hear from this generation these days is that they can’t pay the bills.

    No sense moving here when a one-bedroom condo costs you $1,600 to $1,800 a month to rent. And if you have a family a three bedroom house will cost $2,500 to $3,500 a month. Might as well stay in Williams Lake and grow pot.

  32. caveat emptor: “Consequential amendments follow as the result of substantive amendments to a given law or rule.”
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Correct, Caveat and the substantive amendments to this legislation are going to be consequential to many people.

  33. Excellent analysis. I usually don’t comment on this forum, but wanted to recognise the good work done here. Thank you.

  34. ” I don’t know about you totoro but “consequential amendments” doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy.”

    oops – in this context “consequential” doesn’t necessarily mean “important” it means “following from”. Consequential amendments follow as the result of substantive amendments to a given law or rule.

  35. This strikes me as bearish generally

    Maybe. The increase in 35-50 years is supportive of demand as those are prime ages for net buyers.
    Also it seems that there is no net drop after the university age group, so either university students are choosing to stay, or there is inmigration in that age group too.

    but a lot of people that I have meet retired in their fifties

    Right, that is quite possible.

    It would provide so insight into how many retired Victorians have sold their houses here and moved out of the city.

    Right, after we take out the people that aged and people that died, we are left with net migration. We cannot break it down further than that.

    That means that 2017 is the first year when the Canadian baby boom is just starting to reach 65.

    Yes it is certainly possible that they will still arrive. Of course as our prices increase, the pool of buyers who can afford it narrows.

  36. Allow remote work. Not appropriate for all jobs, but most information workers can probably be remote first. Just takes a shift in management thinking.

  37. Affordable housing shortage impacting Victoria’s economic growth, study finds

    The lack of affordable housing in Greater Victoria is hindering economic growth because employers are having difficulty attracting and retaining workers, according to a new study.

    The findings of the recent survey suggest that if the lack of affordable housing and housing inventory in Greater Victoria is not addressed, the negative impacts on businesses could worsen and restrain economic growth potential in the region.

    …57.2 per cent believe the current housing shortage is making it difficult to attract employees from outside of Victoria. According to the report, 78 per cent of respondents had trouble filling entry-level positions, 42 per cent had difficulty hiring people for middle-management positions and 24 per cent said they had trouble filling senior-management positions.

    http://www.cheknews.ca/affordable-housing-shortage-impacting-victorias-economic-growth-study-finds-357304/

  38. “If user “Michael” were still posting, I wonder what his rebuttal would be. ”

    Pumper Mike has sold out and moved on like I posted months ago. His salesman stories/charts kept the pumpers amused.

  39. Glad to see you put that media/pumper BS to rest Leo. TC reporters love to ride some decades old fake news story and revive it at every bubble top to keep the developer/agent advertisers happy. Just like Luke and a few others on here.

    Expensive looking flipper at 3125 Somerset St just whacked $100K. Damn retirees. 😉

  40. Overseas real estate and soccer clubs in crosshairs as China ramps up investment clampdown

    Tao Jingzhou, managing partner of a law firm Dechert, said the rules marked a major retreat from the overseas investment push promoted over the last few years. “It indicates the government is very worried about capital outflows and that many private businesses are transferring assets abroad,” Tao said.

    The country’s top planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, fleshed out the thinking behind the State Council’s decision, saying some companies had incurred huge losses through inadequate planning and assessment of overseas investment. Those investments, particularly in property, had triggered capital outflows and endangered financial security, it said.

    One banking source said on Friday that investments in overseas office properties were now off limits. The source added that the State Council’s restrictions were likely to stay in place for the longer term because they had greater weight than previous directives from regulators.

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2107392/overseas-hotels-and-soccer-clubs-crosshairs-china-ramps

  41. Another way to think about it is the following:

    Given, today (2017) there are:
    X people aged 55-59
    Y people aged 60-64

    How many people will there be aged 60-64 in 5 years (2022)?

    Let’s call the number of people aged 60-64 in 5 years Z
    Z = number of people currently aged 55-59 (X)
    PLUS number of people that moved here in that age group (a)
    MINUS number of people that moved away in that age group (b)
    MINUS number of people that died in that age group ( c)

    Hence, to get a sense of how many people moved here, we factor out X, and look at the remainder of (a+b+c). That gives us a sense of net migration. If we wanted to take it a step further we could apply actuarial tables to estimate how many people died ( c) and get even closer to the net migration figures.

  42. I am not a stats guy but there seems to be a really big bump up in the two fifty year old scales. when comparing the 2011 and 2016 years. totally unscientific but a lot of people that I have meet retired in their fifties. The tables would also have to be adjusted for the mortality rate.

    To get a clearer picture one would have to also take a look at how off island purchasers we have had over that five year period from the ROC. It would provide so insight into how many retired Victorians have sold their houses here and moved out of the city.

    But the charts are interesting but they only show part of the picture. As to the baby boom effect it is too early to tell since the baby boom in Canada started in about 1952 about six years later than the US. That means that 2017 is the first year when the Canadian baby boom is just starting to reach 65.

  43. LeoS, you’re latest post and graphs confirms my opinion of you… you’re brilliant!! Thanks for keeping this blog going, I don’t usually read the subjective banter but I always read your factual articles and study your graphs.

  44. Garden Suitor
    August 18, 2017 at 8:09 am …. “not normative rules at this point.”

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    You are correct in this statement, my friend. People will have until the fall to make whatever decisions that they have to in order to deal with the new legislation.

    “Once the changes to Guideline B-20 are finalized, OSFI intends to make consequential amendments to Guideline B-21 – Residential Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Practices and Procedures.”

  45. oops: yeah, the OSFI sections I’ve read and that you’ve quoted have a lot of “may” and “discretion” in them. I agree with Totoro that it seems to be guidelines and not normative rules at this point.

  46. If user “Michael” were still posting, I wonder what his rebuttal would be. “Boomer wave” was always the main component to his bullish predictions for VicRE. Funny how he quietly dropped off.

    Interesting data, thanks Leo. Would appear to suggest a demographic shift of sorts.

  47. Fascinating. This strikes me as bearish generally, because it suggests a pattern of more people in pre-senior age brackets taking on bigger mortgages with less money to pay them off. Put differently, the rate of free-and-clear ownership has probably fallen substantially and is probably falling faster as prices continue to rise. Oh right, that’s hardly news…

    I just found out that my elderly neighbors of 25 years are still struggling to make mortgage payments on their SFH — in fact, just tacked on the cost of a big family wedding and vacation and some other stuff. It’s a bank-enabled lifestyle choice…

Comments are closed.