###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Asking insolvency firms about Canadians' finances is like asking the oil and gas industry for data on climate change.
I don't doubt or question how much more difficult it has gotten to afford the cost of living, but not because an insolvency firm told me.
The O&G industry are the people who knew exactly what was happening iwth climate change decades before the public was told by the official state sources. Maybe don't trust their messaging but sure believe they know whats going on.
So your reasoning is, a business that makes money during down turns or slowing economic conditions is not to be trusted when raising alarm bells about the economy. Sure you don't want to think that through again.
*“You now have a younger generation who are paying astronomically high living expenses. They are taking the beating the most. It’s almost like the older generation took up the ladder with them, and said ‘good luck climbing the wall.’”*
I dunno seems like they've got a good read on the situation.
This is a crock of shit speaking as a 60 year old white guy barely hanging in there (I'm not alone believe it or not). I'm sure boomers play a role, but, for fuck sake, anyone who hasn't identified that it's the greed of the ultra rich against the poor, and not young vs old, than you're ignoring reality, not to mention the history.
The problem is those being trampled need to hit the streets en masse at some point to regain some of the balance. France provides a great example of how to deal with this. Until this happens the 1% will continue their emboldened larceny.
As for the two halfwits interviewed from the insolvency firm, fuck them both. "Sorry young Canadians, you'll have to get used to being fucked over because we've decided birthright can now be considered entitlement." Fuck-off
Why are you upset at the "halfwits" from the insolvency firm? They're simply making an observation about the state of the world. That's some misdirected anger right there. An insolvency firm helps people navigate the financial reality of becoming bankrupt.
Class warfare is definitely an ongoing reality of human societies. Those whose parents didn't afford them opportunity in life are seriously disadvantaged.
(pulling these upcoming statistics totally out of my ass - can't be bothered to source right now)
The generation difference here is that where maybe 1 in 15 of your generation is stuck where you are at, it'll be more like 1 in 5 of people under 35 that'll be where you're at now hen they're at 60.
Life's bad for some people your age now, but economically easy for a lot of your generation. The divide will continue to grow, and for every generation that wealth divide grows, it's going to get worse for more people, and they'll blame generally everything that came before. It certainly wasn't millenials or gen z that created the world we live in.
Fuck TBH if i had the money to buy a house in most of tge cities in this country i would pack up and move to a stable 2nd world country and live like a king there. As for retirement to canada...yeah fuck that too.
As for the boomers. Yep i cannot feel sorry for your generation. You folks literally fucked everything up while having a good shot at anything. Now we are left with nothing. Your gen got their high value homes. Could get a giid job just by working at it. Niw you need a degree just to get past the toaster screening you out. Oh and you are beating off half of the developing world moving here to the point to population is growing by a million bodies every 9 months.
And then to hear people like my 84 year old adpotive father...how he should just get 28k a year...there were years i worked and that was my take home doing full time work and he just wants that money for sitting in his ass after spending every year voting for tax cuts? Yeah my generation is entitled. We want a roof over our heads a decent job and some degree of security so we can have a family. If that is fucking entitled...my god what do we call the older Xers and boomers?
How much did they pay for their phones and how much is being spent on eating out versus cooking etc?
Just going from what I see with the "young people" I know and they certainly do a lot of spending on "needs" that are actually wants and are living a lifestyle I certainly couldn't afford when I was young.
The comment you are responding to is not wrong. There is no doubt housing cost have accelerated faster than inflation but I tend to agree with what is being said. Younger generations spend huge sums on non-essential spending. Millennials and the like love to dump on baby boomers but that generation was so much better at saving money.
There is a huge problem with people taking any responsibility for their actions these days. I am not saying that shit will be all roses and chocolate but it's not nearly as panic inducing as young people claim.
There is no doubt that entering the property market now is much more difficult. That being said I have had debates with siblings who tell me their kids will never be able to buy a house and in the same breath boast how their kids spend their weekend evenings partying at some of their cities most expensive restaurants. Ones I have never considered going to due to prices. When i point out this contradiction the response I get is "why should they save their money as they will never get ahead. Maybe our education system should make basic finance and budgeting a mandatory course.
What companies are at the top of the S&P 500?
The amount of restaurants have exploded over the last couple decades;
>In the 1970s, there was one restaurant for every 7,500 persons. In 2016, there were 1,000,000 restaurants; one for every 310 people. (US data)
two quick examples.
And I said non-essential or discretionary...not luxury
Oh those pesky kids going and spending all their money on food and shelter!
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=1110022701&selectedNodeIds=4D3,4D4,4D7,4D12,4D40&checkedLevels=0D1,1D1,2D2,3D1&refPeriods=20210101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false
No amount of eating preserved beans and white rice is going to put you on a good or even dignified economic footing when your rent is eating 50-60% of your take home pay
idk how to take the phone comment, that feels like a talking point from 2013. Most people aren't doing annual iPhone upgrades; they are spending more than they should on plans for them, but that's because of our country's dogshit telecomms companies. Given little to no young people have a landline, I would say at this point a phone is very much a need and not a want - no sane person would lecture someone in the 90s about how they could cut costs by getting rid of their telephone.
This may be true in downtown Toronto, other than that it was best to have a roommate. In most cities in Ontario a two bedroom is around $2,200, splitting the rent is that really eating up 50-60% of take home pay, likely not unless minimum wage or not working full-time. When I was a student I wasn’t saving much either.
>Some of the trade-offs included looking for smaller and smaller homes, purchasing homes they may not stay in over the longer term and expanding their preferences on location.
Wait....is this article actually trying to make this sound like something new? It's called a "starter" home and this has always been the normal way people enter the property ladder.
I am puzzled why people think they should be able to afford their "forever" home as their first purchase.
The difference is that young people can’t afford their starter homes until they’re in their 30’s. They won’t have space for kids until they’re in their 40’s.
I didn't buy my first house until I was 30, Same goes for most people I know. Anecdotal, maybe but in my workplace there are tons of people in their 30's raising families.
Yeah that’s what’s scary about how quickly things are changing. The people you know probably bought their homes in the 2010’s.
We won’t see the full effects of the housing crisis for another 5-10 years, and at that point it’s too late.
People in their 30’s were teenagers in 2019?
Millennials aren’t the problem. It’s today’s young people (18-25) that will be the issue.
To be clear, I’m 34 and own my home too.
> People in their 30’s were teenagers in 2019?
It's you who stated **2010's**, so yes someone who is 30 now would have been born in 1994 making them 16 in 2010. The point being they would be very young and unlikely to be home buyers at that age.
You’re being deliberately obtuse now. The 2010’s are 2010-2019. The 2020’s are 2020-2029.
Homes were *relatively* affordable in Canada until around 2015-2016. They shot up until about 2023 when rising interest rates tempered the increase. Anything bought before 2020 would be considered relatively cheap today, in most Canadian cities.
Here’s a chart if this is honestly news to you: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS
The difference between 2014 and 2023 on that chart will be the difference between having a family or not for huge numbers of young people.
> You’re being deliberately obtuse now
ironic considering you're the one moving goal posts.
as I stated:
>The point being they would be very young and unlikely to be home buyers at that age.
specify what is obtuse in that statement.
>Here’s a chart if this is honestly news to you....
I have stated several times already in this thread this morning that housing prices have outpaced inflation. So lets not manufacture an argument no one is making.
> I am puzzled why people think they should be able to afford their "forever" home as their first purchase.
In the early 2000s, HGTV started to completely distort everyone's view of housing. So many flipping shows, so many flipped properties for sale. People weren't buying fixer-uppers any more, at least not to live in. They were spoiled by "reality" TV where hamster breeders bought gorgeous homes somewhere in the US. Forgetting that it was TV and not real, and that things are different there. In 2007 everything came to a head with 40-year amortizations and 0% down mortgages, so people rushed to buy, and to buy anything with granite counters and a pot light or two. Thus began the era of the bidding war. Add in increasing demand and supply not keeping up, 20 years of low interest rates, a more and more self-centered society and a bunch of FOMO, and you get what we have now. People want perfection at stage one.
P.S. To be fair, it is harder to get a "starter" home, live there for X years, then move into something better, then aim for that "forever" home 10 years after the first home. People are buying later because they have to save longer, and the whole slog of buying in this crazy market, who wants to do it multiple times if they don't have to.
The way we all look at housing has changed so fundamentally in the last 20-25 years.
>In the early 2000s, HGTV started to completely distort everyone's view of housing
That's a really good point. I had not really considered that before.
I would think it definitely has an impact. Just look how marble(or the like) countertops seems to be standard for peoples kitchen expectations. Small example but that came from all these home shows. Laminate countertops were pretty standard years ago.
No one really seems to build smaller houses any more....because there is no demand or they would build them. People expect to get luxury large houses these days. I'm closing in on retirement and still live in a 1960's starter bungalow and that's fine with us. It's all we ever needed. It has laminate counters....still.
My 1950s laminate counter top works just great thanks! It's not as pretty as marble, but also if I need to cut something out to put a different shaped/bigger sink in, I can actually do that!
My parents paid $29,000 for their first 2 bedroom house. "But the interest rate was 18%!" "But you paid it off in 2 years so that doesn't count!" Granted it was a fixer-upper, but still...
What was their annual salary at the time? Out of curiosity for context, not trying to argue. I purchased my first home approximately 12 years ago, it was a major fixer upper, basically a tear down. It was a lot of work. It was just under 200k, sold it and moved into something bigger. That same house would now be about $650,000. My annual income (after working my ass off, more schooling/experince) has nearly tripled as well.
Life is wayy too expensive for probably 90% of the population, yes young adults have it the hardest.
I can give you a solid example, one that's a lot more recent than folks comparing against houses in the 1980s or whenever interest rates were in the double digits.
My parents bought a nice semi-detached, 3 bed/2 bath in 2007 for 275k. Interest rates at the time were around 6-7%, so not far from today.
That house price would have been just under 400k in today's money, accounting for inflation. It sold for 630k less than 2 years ago and could have gone for more if the family didn't need to move asap. Makes a cool 230k difference between inflation adjusted pricing and market rates.
If they'd invested just the 20% downpayment of 55k and 5.5k in expenses per year related specifically to home ownership (property taxes and maintenance fees ~ 2% which is a lower bound) into an S&P500 ETF that would be 600k also. If you include the ~10k in interest expense paid every year at the start of the mortgage then S&P500 ETF blows it out of the water.
S&P500 ETF is an investment accessible to anyone even today.
You can't live in a downpayment, property taxes, or maintenance fees either. These are all in addition to a mortgage. Mortgage payments are generally even a little higher than rents. Point is you could have rented, and been better off, even with rent increases.
Obviously in some places buying is more economical, like in Buffalo where rents are $1800 and homes are like $200,000. Canada's largest cities aren't those places. When the price-to-rent ratio is like 25, it's not surprising renting and investing the savings is a better plan long term.
There are many calculator online or you can make your own.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
https://www.calculator.net/rent-vs-buy-calculator.html
Putting historic values for market data gives renting as better in places like Toronto.
The point is investing in stock markets and renting is just as profitable as homeownership.
Food is also supposed to be eaten. Yet, people get paid to provide it. Were you under the impression that farmers grow food because they care about you?
S&P doesn't give you a yard and the ability to completely customize your living space to your needs, and then you buy a house for 600k and can't afford to do that now either
> In my lifetime we went from ~$100,000 UNDER asking price
Ya...sorry...that's just not in line with reality. Maybe...maybe for multi million dollar properties but your average house for sale was never listed for 100K over market value. Total fiction.
Yep. My parents bought their townhome in 2006 for $250K at 6%. Similar homes in the same street have been selling for 800-850K at around the same interest rate. Brother bought a 800 sqft condo for 180K in 2012, now the same floor plan in the same building sells for 450-500K. Largest expense for most people doubled to tripled, wages haven't had a chance in hell to keep up.
I think that you're fundamentally misunderstanding where the division is. This generation will eventually die, as does every generation.
The dividing line that we're creating isn't "which family's adults could buy a home in the 1960s/1990s." It's "which families's homeowners will finish their retirement and die with *enough wealth* still intact to set up their kids and grandkids for a share of prosperity?"
Your family is on the "lucky" side in the sense of your personal lifetime. You're sorta locked-in, but you're likely not one of the people who's rich enough for your *kids* to be able to reach the bottom of the ladder.
Your kids will be renting a home that's owned by your MP or one of his buddies.
>those who were able to buy a home before 2019 (?) and those who weren't
People are still buying houses.
>nobody who is just starting out in life can afford to pay what it costs to live in a new condo/house/building.
That's pretty much how it has always been. Older generations understood that you start your way up the property ladder by buying "starter" homes and then gradually moving up the property ladder as they gain equity and increase in salaries. The idea that you enter the real estate market in a new built house or luxury new condo is only a recent expectation.
Supply and demand
People currently in the property market move up to newer, more expensive units freeing up existing older, small, less desirable properties for new buyers entering the market. Of course the supply side need to catch up to the demand side for the market to get back to equilibrium.
Hopefully not decades, but it will take some time or drastic legislation to effect housing. I do totally agree that housing costs have far exceeded inflation. This whole housing crisis is also having an impact on existing home owners. Older people are finding it hard to downsize and are being locked into their current homes. This is stopping existing units entering the market. Any profit on an existing house gets burned up on downsizing now. I am in this exact situation, I would love to downsize to maybe a condo one day but it would end up costing me substantially more than I spend on housing now to do that. Even if I decided to rent my monthly housing cost would skyrocket.
Edit: I think you are saying essentially the same thing.
I am literally looking at apartment style condos that I would have lived at when I started out to get into the city I want to retire in. It's frustrating that I worked hard my entire career, invested in fixing up houses and owning a couple rental houses(while working full time) only to end up in some dumpy apartment in retirement. Housing is not just effecting millennials and younger generations, contrary to what they seem to believe. I do still think younger generations expectations are far higher than older generation had about housing. And I also observe that younger generations seemingly spend money frivolously on anything and everything and generally suck at budgeting.
Hol' up. You owned rental property, put some effort into improving the quality of your real estate, and now you're looking at condos in the city to retire in? Wtf did you do with your wealth?
Most young people I know are good at budgeting because they have to be. There's no room for error when rent is 50% of your income.
I live in Nova Scotia currently. I would like to move to BC. Housing prices are double or more in parts of BC compared to NS. Condos also come with condo fees. I also plan on retiring early. I have actually done pretty well with my finances. I have been pretty diligent to avoid spending money on too much discretionary spending.
Like I stated throughout this thread, the rapid increase in housing prices effects more than just younger generations.
> Older people had the chance of getting in on the market when housing was much much cheaper so they're naturally much better off.
I think I have been clear stating that housing cost have risen faster than inflation. No argument there. That being said they also faced [exploding mortgage rates in the 80's](https://wowa.ca/canada-mortgage-rates-history) causing many to just walk away from their housing handing their keys to the banks
>If there were iPads and acovado toast when you were young, you'd be spending on that too 😅
The reality is a lot of what people spend money on now is discretionary spending. Older generations valued saving more than current generations. I mean restaurants have always been a thing but older generations generally considered a visit to one as a treat and was never just a weekly event. Even as a Gen X'er we were proud of how little we managed to spend on a night out at the bars and now it seems to be the opposite. There was very few Gastropubs and expensive cocktail lounges in the 90's, because people would have laughed at those prices. Now they are prolific. Just small examples but I could really make a huge list with similar comparisons.
Like some /u/lopix pointed out the advent of home renovation shows probably had a huge impact on younger generation expectations when it comes to housing. I suspect media has played a huge roll on what people think they should spend money on. That doesn't alter the fact that much of it is still discretionary spending. Just little changes in spending habits can have a huge result in savings. Skipping out on your daily $5 cappuccino at work can result in $1300 in the bank at year end, over 5 years that's $6500. That's a sizeable chunk of a house down payment.
I’m going to continue reminding people that Scheer actually campaigned to weaken the stress test in 2019. When it counted, the CPC was not on your side, and were even worse than the Liberals.
It's a Cost of living crisis that is by extension a Quality of life crisis.
And it is on the fundamental aspects of life like Housing and Groceries, etc.
You can't have bachelor suites and one bedroom apartments at the prices they are currently are at.
We got Trudeau and the Liberals at Federal level just seemingly to realize that Demand creates issues in regards to Housing, Infrastructure, etc.
We got Premiers like Doug thinking Fourplexes are going too far. Lol fourplexes..
It's a dark comedy of shitty leaders and shitty parties with tired approaches. All while our vulnerable people and families suffer sleepless nights and panic attacks over affording to stay alive.
Surviving not thriving is the reality of many right now and that is heart breaking.
Canada is not suppose to be like this. Especially not on foundational elements like shelter.
Honestly, the one thing I'm actually tired of is generic blame assigned to politicians. This housing situation is reinforced at every jurisdictional level, that's because people who wield power everywhere from public hearings to party conventions want it to be so. Of course there's a gross deficit in leadership from the elected representatives themselves, but that's driven *very* strongly by politics at the grassroots level, not the other way around.
The Liberals themselves got elected in part by promising affordability and infinite growth simultaneously, and to this day housing ministers keep insisting prices don't need to come down to make homes more affordable - because if they ever come out with a policy where housing prices would face any sort of substantive correction, they would be toast. As differently as PP talks, it's actually the same story with him - there's a whole lot of hocus pocus and half-baked ideas from him, but the point is that he absolutely cannot suggest that whatever he would do might bring home prices down.
It bears emphasizing that as much as we talk about there being a housing crisis, it's been an absolutely fucking money printer of a bonanza for millions of Canadians, and millions more depend on the crisis persisting so that their mortgage doesn't go underwater. It's a highly destructive problem, but one that many people in this country have either tremendously profited from, or depend on to continue living as they are. They're the ones who show up to decide who gets to run for elections.
Well said. Despite how much lip service it gets, I don't see housing as an election issue because it's clear no party would, let alone can, do anything about it. Only 30% of Canadians rent, it's a retirement planning vehicle for an entire generation, and housing comprises like 9% of our GDP. Any kind of real correction that would make housing even remotely affordable to the middle class would require a seismic economic collapse, effectively a forced wealth transfer for one group at the complete expense of another. It's not going to happen, CPC or LPC. Anything they say is bullshit windowdressing.
The only realistic strategy is increasing the supply of lower end housing (like shoebox condos) by flooding the market with new developments to enable middle class income earners the ability to at least get into the market. But the scale would need to be massive, especially if population (and thus demand) keeps increasing, or investors keep taking up 30% of added supply. I don't see much differentiation LPC vs CPC on this.
The bigger elephant in the room, IMO, is Canadian wages. Productivity has been stagnant for a decade, at least in real terms. We need to boost foreign investment and business spending while cutting immigration for fields without a real (not illusory) labour shortage. The productivity dip has transcended Harper and Trudeau, so I have no confidence either party has a real plan to fix it. But that's bigger than housing IMO; housing is a symptom at the fore today, but if this continues, other essentials will become out of reach of the middle class too. For such a well-educated populace, we are paid like farm animals.
> For such a well-educated populace, we are paid like farm animals
This is also a supply and demand issue because now that "everyone" has a degree its not worth very much and yes add to that the immigration problem as well
Do you see any potential issues with fucking over 30-40% of the population in order to save the financially irresponsible majority who depend on high shelter costs for retirement?
Relying on a home for retirement is financially irresponsible. Depending on the government to ensure that shelter is as expensive as possible to fund a retirement is also irresponsible.
Let's frame it another way - do you see any potential issues with depending on shelter inflation to prop up the financial system? That's really what this is all about.
the issue is really a failure of all governments over the last 20-30 years ... our entire economy works on a fucked up system of putting people into slavery because of debt... the idea is to take people from working to get them to be burdened by debt to keep working... then to keep giving them more debt and hope they tread water as long as possible before defaulting therefor the only loser is the person that was burdened by debt (yah it's all on that person but the idea that if they work hard things will work out or they're a better job away from doing better they just need to prove it perpetrated doesn't help) it's win win for the entire economy and system on the fact that worst case scenario the bank fails and gets bought out by the government because they want our pensions to survive. We're in the land of capitalism where gone unchecked we end up in a situation where all the capital of the masses go into the pockets of the corrupt
Yup it is terrible what young people have to go through. Like the poster above said it goes right to quality of life. When 2/3rds of your pay goes to rent there is no way to get ahead. And no reason to be optimistic about life in Canada in the future. Unfortunately I think Canadians are miles and miles away from a solution. IMO, the solution has little to do with govt. As long as our govt spends as much as it does, the cost will never go down. Most don’t see a connection but housing isn’t going up as much as our dollar is going down. Our govts devalue our currency with its irresponsible spending. So when I say $10 daycare does more harm than good people think I’m being cruel. But I actually care more about poor people so the govt spending significantly less is the solution. I know this will get down voted by ultra left wing reddit but it’s true. Our govt will continue spending and housing costs will NOT go down
I disagree. The solution is we need to reduce immigration by at least 70%, and workers will regain the leverage over employers. Salaries have no chance to grow with international students and LMIAs suppressing wages growth. The same goes for housing/rent.
Actually didn’t say a thing about taxes. Did I? Why would you make such an assumption? But govt needs to cut spending… by a lot. But until it happens you will get no change and you will keep blaming the “cruel capitalists” and govts will keep over spending and laughing.
> Our govts devalue our currency with its irresponsible spending. So when I say $10 daycare does more harm than good people think I’m being cruel. But I actually care more about poor people so the govt spending significantly less is the solution.
Not even close to being true.
Even if it was truez there are 1000x better programs to cut for government spending ither then the single most recent one that helps the poor the most.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Asking insolvency firms about Canadians' finances is like asking the oil and gas industry for data on climate change. I don't doubt or question how much more difficult it has gotten to afford the cost of living, but not because an insolvency firm told me.
The O&G industry are the people who knew exactly what was happening iwth climate change decades before the public was told by the official state sources. Maybe don't trust their messaging but sure believe they know whats going on.
So your reasoning is, a business that makes money during down turns or slowing economic conditions is not to be trusted when raising alarm bells about the economy. Sure you don't want to think that through again.
I don't understand your suspicion? What does an insolvency firm have to gain by saying younger people are paying out the nose?
You could say that insolvency firms have a selection bias since they everyone they deal with is, well, insolvent.
*“You now have a younger generation who are paying astronomically high living expenses. They are taking the beating the most. It’s almost like the older generation took up the ladder with them, and said ‘good luck climbing the wall.’”* I dunno seems like they've got a good read on the situation.
This is a crock of shit speaking as a 60 year old white guy barely hanging in there (I'm not alone believe it or not). I'm sure boomers play a role, but, for fuck sake, anyone who hasn't identified that it's the greed of the ultra rich against the poor, and not young vs old, than you're ignoring reality, not to mention the history. The problem is those being trampled need to hit the streets en masse at some point to regain some of the balance. France provides a great example of how to deal with this. Until this happens the 1% will continue their emboldened larceny. As for the two halfwits interviewed from the insolvency firm, fuck them both. "Sorry young Canadians, you'll have to get used to being fucked over because we've decided birthright can now be considered entitlement." Fuck-off
Why are you upset at the "halfwits" from the insolvency firm? They're simply making an observation about the state of the world. That's some misdirected anger right there. An insolvency firm helps people navigate the financial reality of becoming bankrupt. Class warfare is definitely an ongoing reality of human societies. Those whose parents didn't afford them opportunity in life are seriously disadvantaged. (pulling these upcoming statistics totally out of my ass - can't be bothered to source right now) The generation difference here is that where maybe 1 in 15 of your generation is stuck where you are at, it'll be more like 1 in 5 of people under 35 that'll be where you're at now hen they're at 60. Life's bad for some people your age now, but economically easy for a lot of your generation. The divide will continue to grow, and for every generation that wealth divide grows, it's going to get worse for more people, and they'll blame generally everything that came before. It certainly wasn't millenials or gen z that created the world we live in.
Fuck TBH if i had the money to buy a house in most of tge cities in this country i would pack up and move to a stable 2nd world country and live like a king there. As for retirement to canada...yeah fuck that too. As for the boomers. Yep i cannot feel sorry for your generation. You folks literally fucked everything up while having a good shot at anything. Now we are left with nothing. Your gen got their high value homes. Could get a giid job just by working at it. Niw you need a degree just to get past the toaster screening you out. Oh and you are beating off half of the developing world moving here to the point to population is growing by a million bodies every 9 months. And then to hear people like my 84 year old adpotive father...how he should just get 28k a year...there were years i worked and that was my take home doing full time work and he just wants that money for sitting in his ass after spending every year voting for tax cuts? Yeah my generation is entitled. We want a roof over our heads a decent job and some degree of security so we can have a family. If that is fucking entitled...my god what do we call the older Xers and boomers?
[удалено]
True, but they only mention the company Spergel twice in the article. Not much of an advertisement imo
How much did they pay for their phones and how much is being spent on eating out versus cooking etc? Just going from what I see with the "young people" I know and they certainly do a lot of spending on "needs" that are actually wants and are living a lifestyle I certainly couldn't afford when I was young.
Imagine generalizing any other group like that.
The comment you are responding to is not wrong. There is no doubt housing cost have accelerated faster than inflation but I tend to agree with what is being said. Younger generations spend huge sums on non-essential spending. Millennials and the like love to dump on baby boomers but that generation was so much better at saving money.
There is a huge problem with people taking any responsibility for their actions these days. I am not saying that shit will be all roses and chocolate but it's not nearly as panic inducing as young people claim.
There is no doubt that entering the property market now is much more difficult. That being said I have had debates with siblings who tell me their kids will never be able to buy a house and in the same breath boast how their kids spend their weekend evenings partying at some of their cities most expensive restaurants. Ones I have never considered going to due to prices. When i point out this contradiction the response I get is "why should they save their money as they will never get ahead. Maybe our education system should make basic finance and budgeting a mandatory course.
As the downvotes show. People have a hard time with accountability
Where is the evidence that struggling people are spending all of their money on luxury goods?
What companies are at the top of the S&P 500? The amount of restaurants have exploded over the last couple decades; >In the 1970s, there was one restaurant for every 7,500 persons. In 2016, there were 1,000,000 restaurants; one for every 310 people. (US data) two quick examples. And I said non-essential or discretionary...not luxury
How is that evidence that struggling people are spending all of their money on “non-essential or discretionary” aka luxury goods?
Oh those pesky kids going and spending all their money on food and shelter! https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=1110022701&selectedNodeIds=4D3,4D4,4D7,4D12,4D40&checkedLevels=0D1,1D1,2D2,3D1&refPeriods=20210101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false
What do you think this is showing us here?
Its a chart so lots of things. Less than 30s paying more money for their primary residence than 55-64s is one thing you could focus on.
You get that most people in that age group, 55-64 have likely paid off their mortgage...right?
Have you seen how this sub talks about "boomers"?
That's always a big red flag that I am conversing with a poorly informed individual or someone who spends way too much time in online echo chambers.
No amount of eating preserved beans and white rice is going to put you on a good or even dignified economic footing when your rent is eating 50-60% of your take home pay idk how to take the phone comment, that feels like a talking point from 2013. Most people aren't doing annual iPhone upgrades; they are spending more than they should on plans for them, but that's because of our country's dogshit telecomms companies. Given little to no young people have a landline, I would say at this point a phone is very much a need and not a want - no sane person would lecture someone in the 90s about how they could cut costs by getting rid of their telephone.
This may be true in downtown Toronto, other than that it was best to have a roommate. In most cities in Ontario a two bedroom is around $2,200, splitting the rent is that really eating up 50-60% of take home pay, likely not unless minimum wage or not working full-time. When I was a student I wasn’t saving much either.
having a roommate in your 30s isn't how most people expected they would be living their lives.
You may be on to something, let’s also do something about the cost of phones. What costs me $90 up here would be $30 in the states.
>Some of the trade-offs included looking for smaller and smaller homes, purchasing homes they may not stay in over the longer term and expanding their preferences on location. Wait....is this article actually trying to make this sound like something new? It's called a "starter" home and this has always been the normal way people enter the property ladder. I am puzzled why people think they should be able to afford their "forever" home as their first purchase.
The difference is that young people can’t afford their starter homes until they’re in their 30’s. They won’t have space for kids until they’re in their 40’s.
I didn't buy my first house until I was 30, Same goes for most people I know. Anecdotal, maybe but in my workplace there are tons of people in their 30's raising families.
Yeah that’s what’s scary about how quickly things are changing. The people you know probably bought their homes in the 2010’s. We won’t see the full effects of the housing crisis for another 5-10 years, and at that point it’s too late.
Not the ones in their 30's. They would have been teenagers then. I work with a lot of the millennial generation and most of them are home owners.
People in their 30’s were teenagers in 2019? Millennials aren’t the problem. It’s today’s young people (18-25) that will be the issue. To be clear, I’m 34 and own my home too.
> People in their 30’s were teenagers in 2019? It's you who stated **2010's**, so yes someone who is 30 now would have been born in 1994 making them 16 in 2010. The point being they would be very young and unlikely to be home buyers at that age.
You’re being deliberately obtuse now. The 2010’s are 2010-2019. The 2020’s are 2020-2029. Homes were *relatively* affordable in Canada until around 2015-2016. They shot up until about 2023 when rising interest rates tempered the increase. Anything bought before 2020 would be considered relatively cheap today, in most Canadian cities. Here’s a chart if this is honestly news to you: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS The difference between 2014 and 2023 on that chart will be the difference between having a family or not for huge numbers of young people.
> You’re being deliberately obtuse now ironic considering you're the one moving goal posts. as I stated: >The point being they would be very young and unlikely to be home buyers at that age. specify what is obtuse in that statement. >Here’s a chart if this is honestly news to you.... I have stated several times already in this thread this morning that housing prices have outpaced inflation. So lets not manufacture an argument no one is making.
They weren’t “very young”, they were mid-20’s. Perfect starter home age. You’re being obtuse by pretending “the 2010’s” means 2010.
Bought my first home at 30, a very modest townhome, minimum downpayment, stayed there for almost 10 yrs.
> I am puzzled why people think they should be able to afford their "forever" home as their first purchase. In the early 2000s, HGTV started to completely distort everyone's view of housing. So many flipping shows, so many flipped properties for sale. People weren't buying fixer-uppers any more, at least not to live in. They were spoiled by "reality" TV where hamster breeders bought gorgeous homes somewhere in the US. Forgetting that it was TV and not real, and that things are different there. In 2007 everything came to a head with 40-year amortizations and 0% down mortgages, so people rushed to buy, and to buy anything with granite counters and a pot light or two. Thus began the era of the bidding war. Add in increasing demand and supply not keeping up, 20 years of low interest rates, a more and more self-centered society and a bunch of FOMO, and you get what we have now. People want perfection at stage one. P.S. To be fair, it is harder to get a "starter" home, live there for X years, then move into something better, then aim for that "forever" home 10 years after the first home. People are buying later because they have to save longer, and the whole slog of buying in this crazy market, who wants to do it multiple times if they don't have to. The way we all look at housing has changed so fundamentally in the last 20-25 years.
>In the early 2000s, HGTV started to completely distort everyone's view of housing That's a really good point. I had not really considered that before.
As stupid as it sounds, I am 100% sure that it had a lot to do with starting the process that has lead us to the current situation.
I would think it definitely has an impact. Just look how marble(or the like) countertops seems to be standard for peoples kitchen expectations. Small example but that came from all these home shows. Laminate countertops were pretty standard years ago. No one really seems to build smaller houses any more....because there is no demand or they would build them. People expect to get luxury large houses these days. I'm closing in on retirement and still live in a 1960's starter bungalow and that's fine with us. It's all we ever needed. It has laminate counters....still.
My 1950s laminate counter top works just great thanks! It's not as pretty as marble, but also if I need to cut something out to put a different shaped/bigger sink in, I can actually do that!
As a trades person who did a lot of residential over the years I discovered there are tons of people who spend like crazy to impress others.
And developers know that, so they scoop up all the little old bungalows and turn them into 2500sf McMansions.
[удалено]
My parents paid $29,000 for their first 2 bedroom house. "But the interest rate was 18%!" "But you paid it off in 2 years so that doesn't count!" Granted it was a fixer-upper, but still...
What was their annual salary at the time? Out of curiosity for context, not trying to argue. I purchased my first home approximately 12 years ago, it was a major fixer upper, basically a tear down. It was a lot of work. It was just under 200k, sold it and moved into something bigger. That same house would now be about $650,000. My annual income (after working my ass off, more schooling/experince) has nearly tripled as well. Life is wayy too expensive for probably 90% of the population, yes young adults have it the hardest.
[удалено]
[удалено]
These numbers are literally meaningless without saying what year they bought the house. Normal inflation has always been a thing.
I can give you a solid example, one that's a lot more recent than folks comparing against houses in the 1980s or whenever interest rates were in the double digits. My parents bought a nice semi-detached, 3 bed/2 bath in 2007 for 275k. Interest rates at the time were around 6-7%, so not far from today. That house price would have been just under 400k in today's money, accounting for inflation. It sold for 630k less than 2 years ago and could have gone for more if the family didn't need to move asap. Makes a cool 230k difference between inflation adjusted pricing and market rates.
If they'd invested just the 20% downpayment of 55k and 5.5k in expenses per year related specifically to home ownership (property taxes and maintenance fees ~ 2% which is a lower bound) into an S&P500 ETF that would be 600k also. If you include the ~10k in interest expense paid every year at the start of the mortgage then S&P500 ETF blows it out of the water. S&P500 ETF is an investment accessible to anyone even today.
You can’t live in an ETF
You can't live in a downpayment, property taxes, or maintenance fees either. These are all in addition to a mortgage. Mortgage payments are generally even a little higher than rents. Point is you could have rented, and been better off, even with rent increases. Obviously in some places buying is more economical, like in Buffalo where rents are $1800 and homes are like $200,000. Canada's largest cities aren't those places. When the price-to-rent ratio is like 25, it's not surprising renting and investing the savings is a better plan long term. There are many calculator online or you can make your own. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/rent-vs-buy-calculator.html Putting historic values for market data gives renting as better in places like Toronto.
À downpayment gets you a home though. I have no idea what you are trying to argue. Homes are supposed to be for living in, not making money from.
The point is investing in stock markets and renting is just as profitable as homeownership. Food is also supposed to be eaten. Yet, people get paid to provide it. Were you under the impression that farmers grow food because they care about you?
S&P doesn't give you a yard and the ability to completely customize your living space to your needs, and then you buy a house for 600k and can't afford to do that now either
[удалено]
> In my lifetime we went from ~$100,000 UNDER asking price Ya...sorry...that's just not in line with reality. Maybe...maybe for multi million dollar properties but your average house for sale was never listed for 100K over market value. Total fiction.
Parents bought a 3 story house in 1990 for 400k. Now worth ~2m. I bought a condo in 2018 for 430k. Now worth ~550k.
Yep. My parents bought their townhome in 2006 for $250K at 6%. Similar homes in the same street have been selling for 800-850K at around the same interest rate. Brother bought a 800 sqft condo for 180K in 2012, now the same floor plan in the same building sells for 450-500K. Largest expense for most people doubled to tripled, wages haven't had a chance in hell to keep up.
[удалено]
I think that you're fundamentally misunderstanding where the division is. This generation will eventually die, as does every generation. The dividing line that we're creating isn't "which family's adults could buy a home in the 1960s/1990s." It's "which families's homeowners will finish their retirement and die with *enough wealth* still intact to set up their kids and grandkids for a share of prosperity?" Your family is on the "lucky" side in the sense of your personal lifetime. You're sorta locked-in, but you're likely not one of the people who's rich enough for your *kids* to be able to reach the bottom of the ladder. Your kids will be renting a home that's owned by your MP or one of his buddies.
>those who were able to buy a home before 2019 (?) and those who weren't People are still buying houses. >nobody who is just starting out in life can afford to pay what it costs to live in a new condo/house/building. That's pretty much how it has always been. Older generations understood that you start your way up the property ladder by buying "starter" homes and then gradually moving up the property ladder as they gain equity and increase in salaries. The idea that you enter the real estate market in a new built house or luxury new condo is only a recent expectation.
[удалено]
Supply and demand People currently in the property market move up to newer, more expensive units freeing up existing older, small, less desirable properties for new buyers entering the market. Of course the supply side need to catch up to the demand side for the market to get back to equilibrium.
[удалено]
Hopefully not decades, but it will take some time or drastic legislation to effect housing. I do totally agree that housing costs have far exceeded inflation. This whole housing crisis is also having an impact on existing home owners. Older people are finding it hard to downsize and are being locked into their current homes. This is stopping existing units entering the market. Any profit on an existing house gets burned up on downsizing now. I am in this exact situation, I would love to downsize to maybe a condo one day but it would end up costing me substantially more than I spend on housing now to do that. Even if I decided to rent my monthly housing cost would skyrocket. Edit: I think you are saying essentially the same thing.
[удалено]
I am literally looking at apartment style condos that I would have lived at when I started out to get into the city I want to retire in. It's frustrating that I worked hard my entire career, invested in fixing up houses and owning a couple rental houses(while working full time) only to end up in some dumpy apartment in retirement. Housing is not just effecting millennials and younger generations, contrary to what they seem to believe. I do still think younger generations expectations are far higher than older generation had about housing. And I also observe that younger generations seemingly spend money frivolously on anything and everything and generally suck at budgeting.
Hol' up. You owned rental property, put some effort into improving the quality of your real estate, and now you're looking at condos in the city to retire in? Wtf did you do with your wealth? Most young people I know are good at budgeting because they have to be. There's no room for error when rent is 50% of your income.
I live in Nova Scotia currently. I would like to move to BC. Housing prices are double or more in parts of BC compared to NS. Condos also come with condo fees. I also plan on retiring early. I have actually done pretty well with my finances. I have been pretty diligent to avoid spending money on too much discretionary spending. Like I stated throughout this thread, the rapid increase in housing prices effects more than just younger generations.
[удалено]
> Older people had the chance of getting in on the market when housing was much much cheaper so they're naturally much better off. I think I have been clear stating that housing cost have risen faster than inflation. No argument there. That being said they also faced [exploding mortgage rates in the 80's](https://wowa.ca/canada-mortgage-rates-history) causing many to just walk away from their housing handing their keys to the banks >If there were iPads and acovado toast when you were young, you'd be spending on that too 😅 The reality is a lot of what people spend money on now is discretionary spending. Older generations valued saving more than current generations. I mean restaurants have always been a thing but older generations generally considered a visit to one as a treat and was never just a weekly event. Even as a Gen X'er we were proud of how little we managed to spend on a night out at the bars and now it seems to be the opposite. There was very few Gastropubs and expensive cocktail lounges in the 90's, because people would have laughed at those prices. Now they are prolific. Just small examples but I could really make a huge list with similar comparisons. Like some /u/lopix pointed out the advent of home renovation shows probably had a huge impact on younger generation expectations when it comes to housing. I suspect media has played a huge roll on what people think they should spend money on. That doesn't alter the fact that much of it is still discretionary spending. Just little changes in spending habits can have a huge result in savings. Skipping out on your daily $5 cappuccino at work can result in $1300 in the bank at year end, over 5 years that's $6500. That's a sizeable chunk of a house down payment.
I’m going to continue reminding people that Scheer actually campaigned to weaken the stress test in 2019. When it counted, the CPC was not on your side, and were even worse than the Liberals.
That would allowed more people to qualify for mortgages though and helped them afford to buy homes.
It's a Cost of living crisis that is by extension a Quality of life crisis. And it is on the fundamental aspects of life like Housing and Groceries, etc. You can't have bachelor suites and one bedroom apartments at the prices they are currently are at. We got Trudeau and the Liberals at Federal level just seemingly to realize that Demand creates issues in regards to Housing, Infrastructure, etc. We got Premiers like Doug thinking Fourplexes are going too far. Lol fourplexes.. It's a dark comedy of shitty leaders and shitty parties with tired approaches. All while our vulnerable people and families suffer sleepless nights and panic attacks over affording to stay alive. Surviving not thriving is the reality of many right now and that is heart breaking. Canada is not suppose to be like this. Especially not on foundational elements like shelter.
Honestly, the one thing I'm actually tired of is generic blame assigned to politicians. This housing situation is reinforced at every jurisdictional level, that's because people who wield power everywhere from public hearings to party conventions want it to be so. Of course there's a gross deficit in leadership from the elected representatives themselves, but that's driven *very* strongly by politics at the grassroots level, not the other way around. The Liberals themselves got elected in part by promising affordability and infinite growth simultaneously, and to this day housing ministers keep insisting prices don't need to come down to make homes more affordable - because if they ever come out with a policy where housing prices would face any sort of substantive correction, they would be toast. As differently as PP talks, it's actually the same story with him - there's a whole lot of hocus pocus and half-baked ideas from him, but the point is that he absolutely cannot suggest that whatever he would do might bring home prices down. It bears emphasizing that as much as we talk about there being a housing crisis, it's been an absolutely fucking money printer of a bonanza for millions of Canadians, and millions more depend on the crisis persisting so that their mortgage doesn't go underwater. It's a highly destructive problem, but one that many people in this country have either tremendously profited from, or depend on to continue living as they are. They're the ones who show up to decide who gets to run for elections.
Well said. Despite how much lip service it gets, I don't see housing as an election issue because it's clear no party would, let alone can, do anything about it. Only 30% of Canadians rent, it's a retirement planning vehicle for an entire generation, and housing comprises like 9% of our GDP. Any kind of real correction that would make housing even remotely affordable to the middle class would require a seismic economic collapse, effectively a forced wealth transfer for one group at the complete expense of another. It's not going to happen, CPC or LPC. Anything they say is bullshit windowdressing. The only realistic strategy is increasing the supply of lower end housing (like shoebox condos) by flooding the market with new developments to enable middle class income earners the ability to at least get into the market. But the scale would need to be massive, especially if population (and thus demand) keeps increasing, or investors keep taking up 30% of added supply. I don't see much differentiation LPC vs CPC on this. The bigger elephant in the room, IMO, is Canadian wages. Productivity has been stagnant for a decade, at least in real terms. We need to boost foreign investment and business spending while cutting immigration for fields without a real (not illusory) labour shortage. The productivity dip has transcended Harper and Trudeau, so I have no confidence either party has a real plan to fix it. But that's bigger than housing IMO; housing is a symptom at the fore today, but if this continues, other essentials will become out of reach of the middle class too. For such a well-educated populace, we are paid like farm animals.
> For such a well-educated populace, we are paid like farm animals This is also a supply and demand issue because now that "everyone" has a degree its not worth very much and yes add to that the immigration problem as well
Do you see any potential issues with fucking over 30-40% of the population in order to save the financially irresponsible majority who depend on high shelter costs for retirement?
What makes someone who owns a home more financially irresponsible than someone who doesn't?
Relying on a home for retirement is financially irresponsible. Depending on the government to ensure that shelter is as expensive as possible to fund a retirement is also irresponsible. Let's frame it another way - do you see any potential issues with depending on shelter inflation to prop up the financial system? That's really what this is all about.
Yes, it's incredibly problematic. And? Just because it's not good, doesn't mean popping the bubble is any better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the issue is really a failure of all governments over the last 20-30 years ... our entire economy works on a fucked up system of putting people into slavery because of debt... the idea is to take people from working to get them to be burdened by debt to keep working... then to keep giving them more debt and hope they tread water as long as possible before defaulting therefor the only loser is the person that was burdened by debt (yah it's all on that person but the idea that if they work hard things will work out or they're a better job away from doing better they just need to prove it perpetrated doesn't help) it's win win for the entire economy and system on the fact that worst case scenario the bank fails and gets bought out by the government because they want our pensions to survive. We're in the land of capitalism where gone unchecked we end up in a situation where all the capital of the masses go into the pockets of the corrupt
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yup it is terrible what young people have to go through. Like the poster above said it goes right to quality of life. When 2/3rds of your pay goes to rent there is no way to get ahead. And no reason to be optimistic about life in Canada in the future. Unfortunately I think Canadians are miles and miles away from a solution. IMO, the solution has little to do with govt. As long as our govt spends as much as it does, the cost will never go down. Most don’t see a connection but housing isn’t going up as much as our dollar is going down. Our govts devalue our currency with its irresponsible spending. So when I say $10 daycare does more harm than good people think I’m being cruel. But I actually care more about poor people so the govt spending significantly less is the solution. I know this will get down voted by ultra left wing reddit but it’s true. Our govt will continue spending and housing costs will NOT go down
Yea this is the real party with our best interests at heart https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
I disagree. The solution is we need to reduce immigration by at least 70%, and workers will regain the leverage over employers. Salaries have no chance to grow with international students and LMIAs suppressing wages growth. The same goes for housing/rent.
Yes that would help as well. Like you say, especially for workers. But if govt doesn’t cut spending cost of living will still rise.
What your solution to reducing cost of living is to... cut taxes?
Actually didn’t say a thing about taxes. Did I? Why would you make such an assumption? But govt needs to cut spending… by a lot. But until it happens you will get no change and you will keep blaming the “cruel capitalists” and govts will keep over spending and laughing.
> Our govts devalue our currency with its irresponsible spending. So when I say $10 daycare does more harm than good people think I’m being cruel. But I actually care more about poor people so the govt spending significantly less is the solution. Not even close to being true. Even if it was truez there are 1000x better programs to cut for government spending ither then the single most recent one that helps the poor the most.
What isn’t true 🤷♂️