Calgary Real Estate predictions?

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Red

What if you bought in 2002 for 240K and were just laid off. And there is a job for you back home, sask or ont?

Exactly.

There is very little holding back most home owners from selling at the much lower price other than the preception that they are losing money they never actually had.

Unlike the thousands (which are a large absolute number but small compared to the number of total home owners) who are already upside down on their mortgages and are essentially trapped in their homes until they can build equity faster than they are losing it (which would be impossible for any young middle class person).


Remember, the largest generation in Canada is set to retire over the next few years. I read a survey that 29% percent own at least 2 homes in Canada. 70%(numbers vary) of them are planning on using home equity as their number one source of retirement income (and therefore need to sell their home at some point within 0-20 years).

Also, remember that most speculators (and many many average people had become 'speculators' - though considered themselves 'experts' lol) bought second+ homes where the costs are not covered by the rents/income. When these units start to hemmorage cash for the investors it does not take much to create a scenario where they are better off selling the property for a $40,000 loss (for example) than it is to keep that property through this downturn and to a point where it may pay for itself with positive cashflow (which could be a decade or more). Add in a scenario where they need to re-finance in a couple years at 18% interest (like Russia, Iceland and soon England are all facing) and selling at a loss sooner rather than later looks even more appealing.



As for oilsands, they may never be completely developed. If they get delayed for 10 years alternatives that do not destory the earth will likely have been found and most any first world nation will block imports of such dirty oil. I suppose if it does not invoke an outright embargo from first world nations Canada/Alberta may be able to open a secondary market to India or something? Hardly something that will drive home prices IMO.




Claeren.

[photon]

The aging population is a good point.

For oilsands, it'll take far longer than 10 years to completely revamp energy globally even if they found the perfect alternative tomorrow. Heck the perfect alternative is already around but isn't done because of public sentiment.

Plus going forward conventional oil is becoming harder and harder to find, non-conventional will have to take up the slack.

(Personally I'd be ecstatic if we could eliminate oil and gas as an energy source tomorrow)

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by photon

This is totally different than the US's situation. In the US the government bought tons of toxic mortgages that have no hope of ever being repaid, it's lost money.

In Canada that money was spent on the top mortgages, the government bought the cream of the crop, in order to unfreeze intrabank credit. Unless the default rate exceeds the interest paid on the rest of them, the government will MAKE money on those mortgages.

Our situation is not that much different then what is happening in the states, only delayed slightly... In the US, everything was "fine" as long as people had money to spend (Credit/home equity to leverage) and jobs to meet inflated debt service ratios. The problem was as soon as people started hitting the Credit wall, as in no more home equity to spend, people started losing jobs and it was the job losses that triggered the fall. 4 months after the significant job losses stated in the states this "Financial Crisis" came up. Once the banks assets ( which however they wanted to hold them were backed by mortgages) started to go negative, they could no longer borrow nor had money to leverage out to others, the same as you or I couldn't... Thier "HELOC" dried up and went negative as well... There was still money to lend but not to people who were going negative and everyone including the banks were and are going negative.

The Canadian government did buy good mortgages.. but don't kid yourself they were not the "CREAM of the crop"... they were mortages that were NOT in default and WERE backed by CHMC (cdn gov) insurance.. So that means they were high ratio mortages that were already insured by the government. That means MAXIMUM of 20% downpayment to the mortgage and in all likelyhood 5% down. We all agree that country wide home values have dropped 5% or more in the last couple years and that means that of the 75 billion in mortgages they took the VAST majority are already negative. As long as the people keep maintain employment thoes mortgages will be good value yet high risk for the canadian government but as jobless numbers go up thoes mortgages are the first to crumble... Cept now, the CDN gov holds them so they don't forclose if they don';t want to.. but how long do they let people go without paying to keep the economy propped up???

The reason the intrabank credit was frozen is because the assets the bank had were NEGATIVE not positive on thier books.. The banks got 75 billion cash for 50 -60 billion in high risk assets... thats a HUGE swing on the books when looking at loaning out or borrowing money... Do you think there was any way at all, the banks got rid of an asset that was GOOD on thier books, if the banks thought there was ANY way possible to make money or Sell the "Cream of the Crop" mortages they would still be listed as assets and not liabilities...They would have been sold to someone else and not the GOV..

The "Credit Crunch" is spin... a stupid term and only serves to hide the real problem, be it for banks, companies or individuals. The real problem is the MAJORITY of normal people have no money to spend and can no longer leverage thier now negative position on thier home.. No more money to buy cars... car manufactures go bankrupt... no more money for houses... no more money for home renos, no more money for gas and it all adds up to less demand and job losses feeding the cycle.

Bottom line... the last 10 -12 years of driving the economy on credit has bankrupt people and all the "FAKE" wealth created is crumbling away... All this stimulus junk is just trying to put 20 billion into peoples pockets so they can buy have a job and qualify for a loan again, maybe keep making their mortgage payments and hopefully someone new will have to deal with it 2 or 3 years from now....

This thing is FAR from over.. and just starting in Canada.. The huge jobless numbers in November december puts the "Crisis" in canada in or around april, if we follow suit with the americans as we have been doing so far. April is brewing up to be a "Perfect storm" of events, and I think it's going to be a gigantic wake up call to the average joe when he finally starts to see what his real balance sheet looks like.

That being said, i have no real qualifications other then working IT in the finance industry and have seen a few of the "Email" threads bouncing around between people who do have qualifications and a VERY substantial intrest in whats going on... I've sold my house for a loss on the actual house but took what equity I already had and set myself up to ride out whatever comes along... I'm a bystander now to this whole crisis....

[Claeren]

^ Agreed, cash will soon be king.


There was an excellent article about this whole thing in the Globe the other day:
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/...drecovery/home



Basically, before the 'crunch' people were spending more money than they had. So practically speaking how long could that go on for?

Now, post-crunch, people enmasse are saving there money again instead of spending it. That is actually the only sustainable thing for people to do -- it only looks bad because people and companies had been so drastically outspending their actual means to spend.

Kind of crazy to think that SAVING ones money, when done collectively, is both prudent and destructive....




Claeren.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by Claeren

^ Agreed, cash will soon be king.


There was an excellent article about this whole thing in the Globe the other day:
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/...drecovery/home



Basically, before the 'crunch' people were spending more money than they had. So practically speaking how long could that go on for?

Now, post-crunch, people enmasse are saving there money again instead of spending it. That is actually the only sustainable thing for people to do -- it only looks bad because people and companies had been so drastically outspending their actual means to spend.

Kind of crazy to think that SAVING ones money, when done collectively, is both prudent and destructive....




Claeren.

Do you think the average joe is saving their money or barely meeting debt payment requirements while they have no more "equity" to spend?

[Claeren]

Both?

I think a lot of the people you think have a lot of money are actually maxed out on credit and are just covering their servicing costs - though they would never admit it publically, while a lot of those you think are poor are actually just the savers.... ??

Same with companies. A lot of the companies with conservative values were largely punished for being such these last 5 years or so while those who embraced the high-flying zero-consequences lifestyle of easy credit and big leverage all looked good but are actually pretty hollow when poo hits the fan.


(I think one could make a case that the 'credit crunch' is really just a momentus and chaotic shift of power/money from the 'spenders' to the 'savers' so it is no surprise that many of the elites from the passing era will be under pressure in the new era while many of the thrifty outsiders of the past era will now have an opportunity to be elite if they capitalize on their savings to exploit deficits among the spenders.)



Claeren.

[photon]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

Our situation is not that much different then what is happening in the states, only delayed slightly... In the US, everything was "fine" as long as people had money to spend (Credit/home equity to leverage) and jobs to meet inflated debt service ratios. The problem was as soon as people started hitting the Credit wall, as in no more home equity to spend, people started losing jobs and it was the job losses that triggered the fall. 4 months after the significant job losses stated in the states this "Financial Crisis" came up. Once the banks assets ( which however they wanted to hold them were backed by mortgages) started to go negative, they could no longer borrow nor had money to leverage out to others, the same as you or I couldn't... Thier "HELOC" dried up and went negative as well... There was still money to lend but not to people who were going negative and everyone including the banks were and are going negative.

There's always people who are going to live off credit until they can't, the difference is Canada's lending rules are very different. How many mortgages were to really bad borrowers in the US? 25%? How many were here? 2%? And while things were loosening up here a bit, it was nothing like what you could get down there before it all fell apart.

Originally Posted by metal_geek

The Canadian government did buy good mortgages.. but don't kid yourself they were not the "CREAM of the crop"... they were mortages that were NOT in default and WERE backed by CHMC (cdn gov) insurance.. So that means they were high ratio mortages that were already insured by the government. That means MAXIMUM of 20% downpayment to the mortgage and in all likelyhood 5% down. We all agree that country wide home values have dropped 5% or more in the last couple years and that means that of the 75 billion in mortgages they took the VAST majority are already negative. As long as the people keep maintain employment thoes mortgages will be good value yet high risk for the canadian government but as jobless numbers go up thoes mortgages are the first to crumble... Cept now, the CDN gov holds them so they don't forclose if they don';t want to.. but how long do they let people go without paying to keep the economy propped up???

Doesn't quite jive with what I was told by someone who works directly with top people in the banks with respect to what Canada bought so not sure what to say here.

And higher risk doesn't necessarily mean high risk. What's the foreclosure rate on CMHC insured mortgages vs. not?

Originally Posted by metal_geek

The reason the intrabank credit was frozen is because the assets the bank had were NEGATIVE not positive on thier books.. The banks got 75 billion cash for 50 -60 billion in high risk assets... thats a HUGE swing on the books when looking at loaning out or borrowing money... Do you think there was any way at all, the banks got rid of an asset that was GOOD on thier books, if the banks thought there was ANY way possible to make money or Sell the "Cream of the Crop" mortages they would still be listed as assets and not liabilities...They would have been sold to someone else and not the GOV..

Again not really how it was described to me, I guess the banks would want to spin things to look positive, so again not sure what to say.

Originally Posted by metal_geek

The "Credit Crunch" is spin... a stupid term and only serves to hide the real problem, be it for banks, companies or individuals. The real problem is the MAJORITY of normal people have no money to spend and can no longer leverage thier now negative position on thier home.. No more money to buy cars... car manufactures go bankrupt... no more money for houses... no more money for home renos, no more money for gas and it all adds up to less demand and job losses feeding the cycle.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of people were living off of credit from their house. Some, sure. But the implication here is that without this credit driven economy everything will collapse.. well before house prices ran way up there was still an economy that didn't collapse, there was still people buying cars, still people doing renos, still people putting gas in their cars. You make it sound like there's nothing behind it all, that the economy is going to collapse to a barter system or something.

Originally Posted by metal_geek

This thing is FAR from over.. and just starting in Canada.. The huge jobless numbers in November december puts the "Crisis" in canada in or around april, if we follow suit with the americans as we have been doing so far. April is brewing up to be a "Perfect storm" of events, and I think it's going to be a gigantic wake up call to the average joe when he finally starts to see what his real balance sheet looks like.

That being said, i have no real qualifications other then working IT in the finance industry and have seen a few of the "Email" threads bouncing around between people who do have qualifications and a VERY substantial intrest in whats going on... I've sold my house for a loss on the actual house but took what equity I already had and set myself up to ride out whatever comes along... I'm a bystander now to this whole crisis....

Well I guess we'll see what April brings. Recessions happen, somehow society manages to carry on, we're all still here.

I personally do own investment real estate but cashflow was the key factor when I purchased so the actual value doesn't matter as much. Rents can fluctuate a lot before I get concerned. But I'm not saying what I am because of that, I'm just saying what I've read and heard.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Both?

I think a lot of the people you think have a lot of money are actually maxed out on credit and are just covering their servicing costs - though they would never admit it publically, while a lot of those you think are poor are actually just the savers.... ??

Same with companies. A lot of the companies with conservative values were largely punished for being such these last 5 years or so while those who embraced the high-flying zero-consequences lifestyle of easy credit and big leverage all looked good but are actually pretty hollow when poo hits the fan.


(I think one could make a case that the 'credit crunch' is really just a momentus and chaotic shift of power/money from the 'spenders' to the 'savers' so it is no surprise that many of the elites from the passing era will be under pressure in the new era while many of the thrifty outsiders of the past era will now have an opportunity to be elite if they capitalize on their savings to exploit deficits among the spenders.)




Claeren.

I think that the credit crunch is much more than this. There are hundreds of profitable businesses with excellent balance sheets being denied credit right now. Further, when they are offered credit by the lenders there are strings attached that make these loans either impossible, or incredibly unattractive.

Whether people realise it or not, businesses borrow money to operate. Even very profitable businesses need to be able to finance things in order to operate and when this lending stops entirely (as it basically has), the business stops along with it.

That being said, we've seen this before. Governments acted quickly to stimulate the economy and while this money is not always spent wisely, it will help alleviate some of the stress. We've also seen that raising capital in the markets is not impossible. In other words...this to shall pass!

[tvp2003]

I am by no means an expert but this got me scratching my head:

Originally Posted by Claeren

I think the biggest mistake a lot of you are making is the assumption that energy prices in Calgary were the prime driver of real estate pricing. (They were not.)

There were housing price bubbles around the WORLD people. Miami, LA, Vancouver, Spain, Ireland, London, etc etc etc etc etc.

It was due to cheap money (a credit bubble) and not a fundamental need for housing.

Wasn't one of the major driving forces the massive influx of people into Calgary, many of whom had above-average incomes? This drove demand through the roof, and took prices with it (as supply went to record lows).

These days, even though the economy has slowed drastically in the past few years, net migration in Calgary is still positive, no? Plus the fact that many of these people who moved into Calgary and recently bought homes may have little equity (or negative equity), I would guess that they don't have any incentive to sell at the moment, and will be looking to hunker down and ride this out. This would contribute to the lower real estate sales numbers (people looking to stand pat rather than buy and sell in this market). I also wouldn't expect a massive exodus of people out of Calgary (even with the layoffs) -- correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing things in BC, Sask, or out east aren't any better than Alberta these days.

Also, I think the whole "0 down, 40 year mortgage" thing is overstated -- isn't the percentage of people with these mortgages quite low? With mortgage rates at record lows, it's not like the subprime stuff in the US or Alberta in the 80's where people's mortgage payments go through the roof... I suppose if people start declaring backruptcy left and right, that's another issue, but I haven't heard of any big spikes in foreclosures (in Alberta or Canada for that matter)...

[flamey_mcflame]

Statistics to understanding real estate prices, and whether the current pricing is actually reflective of any normalcy in the market. Here's three time/data measurements. December 2003, June 2007(at or near peak), and the latest data(December 2008).

December 2003-Residential(Homes,condos,mobiles) (CREB®)
Average price: 211,659(229,095-home,156,781-condo)
Median price: 190,000

June 2007-Home
Average price: 496,890
Median price: 439,000

June 2007-Condo
Average price: 323,269

December 2008
Average price: 417,398
Median price: 380,000

December 2008-Condo
Average price: 274,919
Median price: 254,500(approx)


Another vital indicator of the health of the housing industry is homes sold to homes listed ratio.

Healthy indicator 1:2.5 to 1:3.5
Calgary(2006-early 2007) 1:1.5(approx)
Current 1:7.5(approx)

Finally, how many days, on average, it takes to sell a residential unit on the market.

Current: 61 days(Homes and condos)
Healthy: 25 days

If you sit down and take a logical and rational look at the numbers, I think you can come to 2 reasonable conclusions.

A) Housing prices are still in overinflated state. Average and median prices are grossly exaggerated compared to 5 years ago.

B) Even though condo and housing starts are going to be dramatically lower in 2009, there is still an abundance of residential units on the market.

Also, when you hear forecasts for the housing industry, consider the source. Many in the industry predict only a modest drop in prices and sales. Keep in mind, in 2006-2007, these were the same people who were telling potential buyers that you should never delay in getting into the housing industry.

My prediction
December 2009-Home
Average price: 380,000(+- 10,000)
Median price: 350,000( +-10,000)

December 2009-Condo
Average price: 250,000(+-5,000)
Median price: 228,000(+-5,000)

[Shazam]

Good thing I bought in 2002 for the princely sum of $196K for my house.

Hey, what's the floor for house prices again?

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I am by no means an expert but this got me scratching my head:



Wasn't one of the major driving forces the massive influx of people into Calgary, many of whom had above-average incomes? This drove demand through the roof, and took prices with it (as supply went to record lows).

These days, even though the economy has slowed drastically in the past few years, net migration in Calgary is still positive, no? Plus the fact that many of these people who moved into Calgary and recently bought homes may have little equity (or negative equity), I would guess that they don't have any incentive to sell at the moment, and will be looking to hunker down and ride this out. This would contribute to the lower real estate sales numbers (people looking to stand pat rather than buy and sell in this market). I also wouldn't expect a massive exodus of people out of Calgary (even with the layoffs) -- correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing things in BC, Sask, or out east aren't any better than Alberta these days.

Also, I think the whole "0 down, 40 year mortgage" thing is overstated -- isn't the percentage of people with these mortgages quite low? With mortgage rates at record lows, it's not like the subprime stuff in the US or Alberta in the 80's where people's mortgage payments go through the roof... I suppose if people start declaring backruptcy left and right, that's another issue, but I haven't heard of any big spikes in foreclosures (in Alberta or Canada for that matter)...

In 2007, I believe Calgary (or Alberta) net-lost people to other provinces but made up for it with international immigrants. In 2008, I'd be suprised if we were any more than flat across the board. For 2009, I bet we'll see a decline as people lose their jobs and move back home.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Wasn't one of the major driving forces the massive influx of people into Calgary, many of whom had above-average incomes? This drove demand through the roof, and took prices with it (as supply went to record lows).

Toronto (generally) receives many more total people than Calgary ever has in a single year. As soon as Calgary has a large enough home building industry (like they do now) to meet demand prices should moderate until that home building indsutry shrinks and/or demand accelerates again past their ability to provide homes.

EXAMPLE:
The Calgary Home Building Industry could easily IMO provide roughly 2500 new homes per month right now if needed. (Compared to the ~800/month from 5 years ago).

Last month about 400 homes were purchased in Calgary. At the height of summer in 2008 only 1400 homes were purchased.

Also note that many Calgarians own more than one house (most people I know do - which is scary that it is the norm not the exception) and there are at least 10,000 units (maybe even 20,000-30,000 once all these condo towers are finished and the 'hidden inventory' hits the market) already in Calgary ready to be purchased if the seller could find anywhere near their price.

And then on top of that note that Calgary has both a historical and national high in home ownership of about 71%. Usually 60%-64% of Calgarians own thier own home so there are less people than ever before who do not already own a home.

Also, I think the whole "0 down, 40 year mortgage" thing is overstated -- isn't the percentage of people with these mortgages quite low? With mortgage rates at record lows, it's not like the subprime stuff in the US or Alberta in the 80's where people's mortgage payments go through the roof... I suppose if people start declaring backruptcy left and right, that's another issue, but I haven't heard of any big spikes in foreclosures (in Alberta or Canada for that matter)...

1) I have read (In the Financial Post) that at the height of the boom 70% of first time Canadian buyers were using 40 year/0 down mortgages.

2) Among existing home buyers the total amount of equity withdrawn from homes is staggering and means that long time owners do not have the large percentages of equity (after the already ~20% drop) to offset the marginal (or outright negative) equity of first time buyers.

3) This will turn out EXACTLY like the subprime stuff and/or the 1980's, if not worse. Either major deflation is going to set in long term which will eat away at home prices for 10+ years OR inflaton will explode and interest rates will spike to well above 15%.

4) As for looking for forecloures and defaults in Canada as a sign of bad times, you are putting the cart before the horse -- they start to happen after the next few dominos fall and people start to really get stressed financially. Canada is 2'ish years behind the USA just like they always are....




Claeren.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Nancy

In 2007, I believe Calgary (or Alberta) net-lost people to other provinces but made up for it with international immigrants. In 2008, I'd be suprised if we were any more than flat across the board. For 2009, I bet we'll see a decline as people lose their jobs and move back home.

Alberta had a net population increase of 56,000 for 2008, 2009 is projected to be 51,000. EDIT: Calgary grew by 28,000 in 2007.

Originally Posted by Claeren

1) I have read (In the Financial Post) that at the height of the boom 70% of first time Canadian buyers were using 40 year/0 down mortgages.

What percentage of that was total home purchases? What percentage of that was people that could not afford to buy if there wasn't a 40 year/0 down option? Without those numbers the stat doesn't have much meaning.

There's very little sub-prime mortgages in Canada. A 40 year / 0 down mortgage to a qualified borrower still accounting for their debt servicing ratio, credit history, ability to pay is VASTLY different than lending a mortgage that GREW over time rather than being paid down to a borrower with no credit history and little income.

Subprime refers to the borrower, not the mortgage.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

That being said, we've seen this before. Governments acted quickly to stimulate the economy and while this money is not always spent wisely, it will help alleviate some of the stress. We've also seen that raising capital in the markets is not impossible. In other words...this to shall pass!

Exactly. New Issue equity markets are actually still relatively robust, for slightly higher than normal fees banks can still move new issues out the door. Something to consider for those decent business' that can't get debt.

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by photon

Alberta had a net population increase of 56,000 for 2008, 2009 is projected to be 51,000. EDIT: Calgary grew by 28,000 in 2007.

Projections likely based on $100 oil...

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by photon

There's very little sub-prime mortgages in Canada. A 40 year / 0 down mortgage to a qualified borrower still accounting for their debt servicing ratio, credit history, ability to pay is VASTLY different than lending a mortgage that GREW over time rather than being paid down to a borrower with no credit history and little income.

Subprime refers to the borrower, not the mortgage.

The point of a down payment is so that if a property's value goes down and the borrower defaults, there's enough equity left that the bank minimizes their losses in a foreclosure. Where's the cushion on a 40/0? A 40/0 500K mortgage @ 5% after four years results in an equity position of 18K.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Also note that many Calgarians own more than one house (most people I know do - which is scary that it is the norm not the exception) and there are at least 10,000 units (maybe even 20,000-30,000 once all these condo towers are finished and the 'hidden inventory' hits the market) already in Calgary ready to be purchased if the seller could find anywhere near their price.

Really? If so, I'm assuming these are rentals, and I don't think the rental market has changed so much that these people (who were presumably in good enough shape to afford a second home) will be selling anytime soon at our current reduced rates. Other sources of inventory, like condo towers and new home building have also slowed, so as long as inventory numbers stay moderate and population numbers are steady (per Photon's stats), I'm thinking prices won't be too bad (although a decrease is almost certain).

Originally Posted by Claeren

2) Among existing home buyers the total amount of equity withdrawn from homes is staggering and means that long time owners do not have the large percentages of equity (after the already ~20% drop) to offset the marginal (or outright negative) equity of first time buyers.

Again, really? I know taking out home equity loans were a big thing in the US, but having a big mortgage down there was more tolerable because mortgage interest is deductible (or at least that's how I understand it). Were there equal numbers of people in Alberta throwing away their home equity on cars, tv's, etc.?

Originally Posted by Claeren

3) This will turn out EXACTLY like the subprime stuff and/or the 1980's, if not worse. Either major deflation is going to set in long term which will eat away at home prices for 10+ years OR inflaton will explode and interest rates will spike to well above 15%.

4) As for looking for forecloures and defaults in Canada as a sign of bad times, you are putting the cart before the horse -- they start to happen after the next few dominos fall and people start to really get stressed financially. Canada is 2'ish years behind the USA just like they always are....

Like the 80's in Alberta, the subprime meltdown was triggered when people could no longer make their mortgage payments because their interest rates spiked. That led to foreclosures, etc. Like Photon said, that is a different scenario, and I don't see the same events happening here in Calgary. Even if people lose their jobs, I would think mortgage rates/payments are still reasonable enough for people to ride things out instead of having to walk away from their homes.

[Shazam]

If people are upside down on their mortgages, some of them are going to walk away. Forget about affordability. If you're fairly certain that your house is never going to be worth the mortgage, and since most people can barely think five minutes ahead, it can seem reasonable to leave.

And, the deduction on mortgage interest in the US is not as useful as you think. You can only pick your standard deductions or the mortgage interest deduction.

[Mike Oxlong]

As far as migration to Calgary and Alberta goes; we are still in a FAR better position that most of the country. We aren't seeing near the layoffs that other parts of Canada are seeing. If anything I think MORE people will be moving here this year to look for jobs when they get laid off from their manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

It isn't a good situation anywhere right now. But I am sure glad I am in Alberta, we have it way better than most.