Why do housing and land prices rise together? Simple: increased demand for housing and constrained supply. Higher housing demand translates to higher demand for land, and when zoning constrains supply, increased demand pushes up prices.

Can you say AI Boom? Despite rent growth softening in many markets nationwide, SF is an outlier with median rent for a ONE BEDROOM now surpassing $4000/mo for the first time in city history

A building approvals regression model - it is about half momentum (AR(1)) and about half the 12m change in the unemployment rate. The counterintuitive bit: a rising unemployment rate predicts stronger approvals growth, not weaker. That's because approvals lead the economic cycle and are driven by interest rates, and the RBA cuts rates precisely when unemployment is climbing. So "unemployment rose over the past year" really stands in for "the RBA has been easing," which lifts approvals. The unemployment rate is just a cleaner, less noisy way to capture that monetary cycle than the cash rate itself. Tested and rejected on AIC/BIC gounds: Approvals level, log-level of approvals, year-on-year approvals growth, 1-month approvals growth, 3-month approvals growth, monthly frequency with stepped quarterly GDP, GDP Q/Q growth, GDP-per-capita Q/Q growth, GDP Y/Y growth, GDP-per-capita Y/Y growth, GDP-per-capita Q/Q lagged 1 quarter, GDP-per-capita Q/Q lagged 2 quarters, 3-month change in cash rate, 12-month change in cash rate, 12-month population growth (smoothed 15 ), lagged dependent on Y/Y

Coastal CA is extremely well-educated.

The underappreciated divide shaping Canadian politics A recent academic paper revisits an old question in Canadian politics: Does where one works shape how one votes? Drawing on data from 16 federal elections between 1968 and 2019, the authors find evidence that Canada’s so-called “sectoral cleavage” remains alive and may even be growing stronger. Public-sector workers are generally more likely than their private-sector counterparts to hold Left-leaning economic views and support parties such as the NDP. The differences are especially pronounced among public-sector professionals and managers. The paper cannot tell us exactly why these differences exist. It may be that people with more interventionist political preferences disproportionately choose careers in government. It may also be that employment itself shapes political attitudes over time. Most likely, both factors are at work. Yet the findings are notable because they connect to several of the most important debates in contemporary Canadian politics. For years, political scientists have understood Canadian politics through the lenses of region, language, class, and ideology. The paper suggests that the employment sector deserves a place on that list. Public- and private-sector workers increasingly appear to constitute distinct political constituencies with different interests, incentives, and policy preferences. Readers of The Hub will recognize this theme. We’ve explored it previously in debates over the public-sector compensation premium, work-from-home policies, pension arrangements, and government workforce growth. What often appears on the surface as a dispute about pay, workplace flexibility, or management practices can reflect a deeper divide between those whose livelihoods depend primarily on government spending and those whose livelihoods are more directly exposed to market forces. This helps explain why debates over government spending, regulation, taxation, and public-sector compensation often feel so contentious. They’re not merely ideological disagreements. They increasingly involve groups whose livelihoods are tied to different parts of the economy.  The findings also resonate with insights from public choice economics, which emphasizes that political actors respond to incentives just as market actors do. The point of course isn’t that public servants are uniquely self-interested. It’s that the interests of those who depend primarily on public budgets may not always align with those whose livelihoods depend on competitive markets, entrepreneurship, investment, and business formation. Recent controversies over public-sector work-from-home policies offer a useful example. What began as a debate about workplace flexibility quickly became a broader argument about accountability, productivity, and the obligations associated with taxpayer-funded employment. Beneath the surface lay competing assumptions about the role and purpose of public institutions themselves. None of this means that public- and private-sector workers are destined to be political opponents. But as government employment grows and public spending occupies an ever-larger share of economic activity, the divide identified in this paper may become increasingly important for understanding Canadian politics. Where one earns a paycheque may not determine one’s political views. But it appears to matter more than many observers once assumed.

Not true. It created new problems.

Stephen Gordon, economist, Laval: "This is *so* dumb. If grocery stores really had market power to speak of, they wouldn't settle for the razor-thin margins they have now. What the hell is Carney playing at?" Note: ave grocery margins (not cosmetics, household essentials, pet care, pharmacy items etc) is typically 2.5% to 3.5%. PS Reminder - PM Carney doesn't grocery shop - Leaders Debate "I'm not one who deals with the food shopping at the house"

The tweet was rent-to-income, not home price, which another thing altogether. This includes data post-2020. Rents track wages. Home prices will detach from income based on interest rate environment and how strong animal spirits. Supply moves on home resale price signals.