Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, it's not people from France are flooding into Montreal/Quebec, right?
They are not flocking here but in relative numbers there are a quite a few immigrants from France in Quebec and although not necessarily visible, they are certainly "audible" pretty much everywhere in the province.
Year in year out, France is at the top or near the top of countries of origin for immigrants to Quebec. Between 4,000 and 5,000 depending on the year. This is about the same as the number of Britons who move to "English Canada", which has three times more population than Quebec.
Consider also that about 15,000-20,000 Britons move to the United States every year. And the US has more than 300,000,000 people.
So sure, it's not a flood but relative to population the migration from France to Quebec is a fairly significant phenomenon.
Perhaps not on the scale of Britons to Australia for example (roughly 20,000 per year for a host population of just over 20 million), but relative to Brits to Canada or US, it's a bigger flow.
I am trying to answer you - again these are just my personal opinions and solely based on my real life experience. I don't know why the multi-quote reply doesn't work as it should - I'll try to use quotes from your message to distinguish from my replies:
-"Houses in Canada are similar to those in the U.S. I know they might be poorly build compared to Europe, but at least they are larger and more beautiful, as well as affordable. I'll rather have a nice, brick & large home for good price, than small, well built and ugly pricy. Nothing happens to the homes anyway, so why care how they are built?"
Beautiful, if we regard this aspect from a design/nice to the eye point of view, yes, I agree, the North-American houses can be beautiful. But in terms of construction material, and durability, they can't beat the European houses. The latter ones being able to actually be passed from a generation to another without problems. You are also saying that the European one may be ugly or/and small? I can show you PALACES / VILLAS from Spain, Polland, Checz, Romania, with plenty of square footage (2500sqft+), and very affordable (max 200-300k euros). Also, some of the countries in Europe don't have property taxes at all (i.e. Ireland or Malta) or in Eastern/Central Europe they are very affordable and you are assessed solely based on the square footage and not based on how rich you look/how beautiful your house looks like. And there are a lot of newer built houses in green, beautiful areas, outside city core. Of course I'm not talking about the usual suspect, the greatest and most famous European city capitals. Many of those, I agree with you, can be very pricy and crappy. I am talking instead about more "emerging" countries if you like, or about areas not that well known. And those areas, price-wise are well affordable (200-250k euro) so I'm not talking about snobby places and things.
Also, you are asking what can happen to the houses? Well, if they catch fire, or a powerful tornado comes, which one survives? A lot of North American folks seem to suddenly forget about this argument when they start praising the "best and perfect" timber frame construction. You know what puzzles me the most? Why the public/Governmental buildings (i.e. metro stations, public libraries, stores) of mid to high rises, are built THE RIGHT way (i.e. using concrete, brick, mortar) and we get the crappy constructions for residential stuff instead. There is some good movement towards better housing, people is starting to get smarter here finally and begin adopting newer technologies such as ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms). I tried to buy one like that but it's 1 in million chance to find one like that. Nothing against timber/stick frame construction, except that for the finite end result, the price should be much lower (max 100k).
"The cheapest sales tax found in Europe start at 16%. Quebec's sales tax is 13.5%, and none on grocery food. If you drive few hours south, you could go to U.S. states with lower, or no salex tax. In Europe, you can't escape them. That's what she's trying to say."
Ah sorry, we were a bit out of sync here. Sales tax is a big pain in Europe, I agree. BUT I was referring to income tax and investment income taxes (the latter including interest, divideds, capital gains). At least Europe is trying to encourage The Savers. Here they don't do anything about that. A consumption tax (sales tax) is better from a savings perspective.
"European and Canadian health care is virtually the same. You have to wait very long time to get service."
Sorry, again I was referring to universities/free education. Not to the public healthcare. Speaking of healthcare - I didn't have to wait long time to get treatment in my country. And I was able to combine the public and the private system. Canada has no private healthcare and the so-called free/public one is not free because we pay it through our bones thru taxes/health premiums.
"Not matter how you feel, Montreal still has 4 seasons. Spring and Autumn are short, but that's the same in any 4 season climate city.
The good thing is that Montreal has guaranteed warm to hot summers, unlike most countries in western and northern Europe. No, it's not raining all the time in the summer, there is plenty of sunshine. Montreal have more annual sunshine than London, Paris, Scandinavia, Germany etc.
Yes, winters are very cold. But recent winters it does not snow as much as it used to be."
Nothing against Autumns in Canada. I love them, they are perfect. I am disappointed about the "Spring" only. The transition from Winter to Summer is too short here, that's just my opinion. Regarding the summers, central and eastern europe have very good, dry and warm climates. And some areas not too much rain. I personally don't cope well with hot + humid summers from here. Some Canadian areas may be less humid, mostly the west coast I heard. I guess it's like the whole US East cost in general (from NY down south to Florida) - but that I'm just speculating because I was never there.
The winters are a big downer, but true, I agree with you, not all years are the same. And here in Waterloo, ON, it seems like we get a lot less snow and the winters are not lasting that long as in Montreal. And slightly less humid too.
"I don't know what you're talking about. In U.S. and Canada you have much more things than they do in Europe."
I was trying to refer rather to higher-quality, more "stylish" things, not electronic-like, mass-production types of things. Here, you have to pay a big premium for things that are not considered average/usual. Of course that in the area of electronic gadgets, computers etc, or general China merchandise North-America (US especially) rulez. But if you want, let's say a distinguished car, or a Bosh fridge, or a tankless water heater, the price would be better in Europe in my opinion. And better quality food is less costly in Europe.
"An old? Montreal is not that old compared to European cities. It has both old and new architecture - that's what makes it unique and beautiful. How many cities have a mountain in middle of a city? The people are beautiful and fashionable, nice parks, old town, stores, cathedrals, underground, excellent subway, great location etc. What you mention about Montreal is what makes it good! I love French, thats why I love the city and makes it unique in North America"
I was referring to Montreal more from an economic growth perspective. I found some parts of the city interesting architecturally. And yes, the Mt. Royal is interesting (although to call it mountain is a bit of exageration - I consider a mountaing something higher than 1800 meters :-) ). What I didn't like was the fact that there is no new construction (take a walk through Vancouver or Toronto downtown core and you will easily notice how many cranes are and a lot of construction activity going on). My PERSONAL feeling was that MTL was a very active and live city economically maybe until 1960s, when it lost the supremacy over Toronto. Again, nothing against it, lots of people may find it charming. I wasn't comparing it with Europe but with other Canadian big metropolitan areas.
Sorry if my message was perceived in other ways....I tried to bring constructive points. I don't like in general when people praise about a thing just because they live in that thing and never went to other places and/or think outside of the box/system, in order to have true terms of comparison.
Thank you.
You seem to be all over the map. Sometimes you criticize Montreal and Quebec, sometimes Canada compared to the States, sometimes North America compared to Europe, then sometimes "English Canada" is great compared to Quebec, then sometimes the U.S. is great and Canada is crap...
They are not flocking here but in relative numbers there are a quite a few immigrants from France in Quebec and although not necessarily visible, they are certainly "audible" pretty much everywhere in the province.
Year in year out, France is at the top or near the top of countries of origin for immigrants to Quebec. Between 4,000 and 5,000 depending on the year. This is about the same as the number of Britons who move to "English Canada", which has three times more population than Quebec.
Consider also that about 15,000-20,000 Britons move to the United States every year. And the US has more than 300,000,000 people.
So sure, it's not a flood but relative to population the migration from France to Quebec is a fairly significant phenomenon.
Perhaps not on the scale of Britons to Australia for example (roughly 20,000 per year for a host population of just over 20 million), but relative to Brits to Canada or US, it's a bigger flow.
I reckon it's a relatively bigger flow because it's one of the few outlets available. Brits have the choice of the US (which is huge), anglophone-Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand for areas in the developed world to emigrate. Brits also have the advantage of English being the lingua franca of the world so they can even choose non-Anglophone developed countries (most of Northern Europe, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and others) and still get by alright. French speakers are a little bit more limited in that way, so Quebec (along with parts of Belgium and Switzerland) are the primary outlets with Quebec being the only one that's really "abroad".
I reckon it's a relatively bigger flow because it's one of the few outlets available. Brits have the choice of the US (which is huge), anglophone-Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand for areas in the developed world to emigrate. Brits also have the advantage of English being the lingua franca of the world so they can even choose non-Anglophone developed countries (most of Northern Europe, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and others) and still get by alright. French speakers are a little bit more limited in that way, so Quebec (along with parts of Belgium and Switzerland) are the primary outlets with Quebec being the only one that's really "abroad".
That's pretty much it. For a large segment of people in France: Quebec = the "new world". Of course, in sheer numbers there are probably more immigrants from France in the U.S. (some people don't really care about language, remember), but the language commonality still puts the number of immigrants from France in Quebec way out of proportion when you consider Quebec's population of barely 8 million. They truly are all over the place, from neighbours on my street, to parents of my kids' friends and schoolmates, to colleagues at the office, to the owners of bakeries, cheese shops and restaurants that my family likes to frequent, to spouses of certain members of my extended family.
You seem to be all over the map. Sometimes you criticize Montreal and Quebec, sometimes Canada compared to the States, sometimes North America compared to Europe, then sometimes "English Canada" is great compared to Quebec, then sometimes the U.S. is great and Canada is crap...
Obviously, not one single country can score all the highest marks for all (personal or general) criteria. What counts the most is which one has a greater number of pluses.
All of these places have an inferior economic situation to Montreal, Quebec and Canada. This is why the prices are so cheap. If and when their economy improves, then the prices will rise substantially, and eventually they will be a lot higher than for comparable properties almost anywhere in North America. Just as they are a lot higher in the moment in European countries like France, Germany, UK, etc. where the standard of living is more comparable to North America.
Not necessarily - even in "well established economies" you could get a significantly cheaper price in certain areas of a country - you don't necessarily have to be in large/too crowded metropolitan areas.
If we could agree on considering Ireland, or Poland, or Malta, or Hungary as meeting your suggested economic "norms", I would then find prices in countries like those very good. Taking Ireland as example, you could get better prices if you aren't in Dublin, obviously. Even in a country like Switzerland (which we'll all agree that its having a more than excellent economy), I wouldn't mind buying a house for 500-600k euro. Because I will know what quality and durability they have.
And in regards to characterizing/drawing a line between countries from an economic perspective, we need to establish what are the criteria that would allow us to simply "throw" a country in the "third-world or 2nd world" category. I can indicate to you, for example, an Eastern European country which has way more gold reserves than ... Canada. So, who's richer in that case? :-) I'm simplifying of course.
Not necessarily - even in "well established economies" you could get a significantly cheaper price in certain areas of a country - you don't necessarily have to be in large/too crowded metropolitan areas.
If we could agree on considering Ireland, or Poland, or Malta, or Hungary as meeting your suggested economic "norms", I would then find prices in countries like those very good. Taking Ireland as example, you could get better prices if you aren't in Dublin, obviously. Even in a country like Switzerland (which we'll all agree that its having a more than excellent economy), I wouldn't mind buying a house for 500-600k euro. Because I will know what quality and durability they have.
And in regards to characterizing/drawing a line between countries from an economic perspective, we need to establish what are the criteria that would allow us to simply "throw" a country in the "third-world or 2nd world" category. I can indicate to you, for example, an Eastern European country which has way more gold reserves than ... Canada. So, who's richer in that case? :-) I'm simplifying of course.
I never said that any country mentioned here was second world or third world, just that the economy wasn't as healthy as here.
Of course, there are more affordable areas in almost every single country. Generally though these are areas where the economy is not as strong as elsewhere.
I never said that any country mentioned here was second world or third world, just that the economy wasn't as healthy as here.
Of course, there are more affordable areas in almost every single country. Generally though these are areas where the economy is not as strong as elsewhere.
True.
Btw I know friends who are living near the peak of a mountain, or an astonishing lake, and do IT work without caring too much about the city stress and being paid based on "western" purchase power parity. You enjoy the nature, fresh air, healthy food, good health care, solid housing - while getting paid as here, now that's an interesting game :-).
Btw I know friends who are living near the peak of a mountain, or an astonishing lake, and do IT work without caring too much about the city stress and being paid based on "western" purchase power parity. You enjoy the nature, fresh air, healthy food, good health care, solid housing - while getting paid as here, now that's an interesting game :-).
Thanks.
On this I agree totally. Technological changes are making the relationship between where you live and where you work is becoming less and less relevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
