UBS report is useless. Go look at the edition from 5 years ago and you'll see they are completely out of touch, with no predictive power.

Your own source shows that Toronto is cheaper than average for the # of years to own an apartment, while also having reasonable rent costs. Looks as though you didn't even read your own source? Or did you just eat their spoon-fed conclusion rather than do any critical thinking, because it's what you wanted to believe? Seems like it.

It's only Canadians who have never stepped outside their country that think Canadian real estate is some crazy anomaly. it's not.

Toronto doesn't even remotely compare to the most expensive housing markets in terms of affordability. 140 cities are less affordable in terms of years of salary to earn an income than Toronto.

>We are the biggest bubble in the real estate world

Not even close. Maybe get out of your bubble.

In terms of affordability Sydney doesn't really even compare to the most expensive housing markets.It's expensive but over 150 cities are worse (some far worse) when looking at years to purchase a home.

It's expensive but it doesn't really compare to the worlds most expensive property markets. Auckland is 12x median income to purchase a property. Over 100 cities are worse including Beijing at 55x, Hong Kong 43x, Taipei 35x, Seoul 31x, Paris 20x, etc.

It's clear the point he was trying to make and you got sucked into a word-debate rather than focus on the topic at hand. You're focussing on such trivial wording and missing the point entirely.

Thanks for helping my writing out. "Losses equality" isn't correct in your comment if you want to be pedantic. Seems your comprehension is also below a second grader.

But no, in both examples, they GAINED inequality. They are less equal. But one is a problem, one isn't. I'm amazed you're struggling this hard with a simple concept.

I'm not saying it's different in regards to increasing/decreasing equality. You're literally arguing with yourself only. I'm worried for your reading comprehension.

It's different in REAL WORLD APPLICATION. In one scenario, Americans on average are becoming poorer. In the other, they are getting wealthier. Done. Not the same. Easy concept. Get it?

Mate, I'm speaking about the real world consequences of the inequality. I'm not conflating it with any specific class.

Middle class people being pushed into poverty, versus wealthy people tripling their salaries, both increase inequality. One is a massive problem, the other, not nearly as much.

It's a pretty important distinction actually. It's not the same thing. One involves people getting poorer, the other involves them getting wealthier. It's not zero sum.