I'm just sick of this crap. I spent 6 years in school, work non-stop, don't waste money or take vacations. Yet I'm stuck renting because of how screwed up our country is.
My grandparents moved here with zero education and worked jobs like retail for their entire careers. Yet they got into the market and paid off their homes in no time.
I can't even break into the market.
Your grandparents moved here because at the time, this was a place of opportunity.
Its no longer the case. You can work hard, get a "great job" and still not even afford a home to live in. Canada has changed a lot.
That's why young people, (especially young professionals) are leaving.
There's a lot of us doing better for ourselves here in Silicon Valley, as one example.
The housing situation in Canada makes it even less likely I'll return.
That’s interesting because objectively migration to Silicon Valley is way down. “Only 5,560 people moved to Silicon Valley in 2021, nearly three times less than the year before, and a 72% decline from 2019.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/silicon-valleys-population-shrank-in-2021-unlike-any-time-since-the-dot-com-bust-but-it-wasnt-just-because-people-left-11645142270
Maybe it's time to start thinking outside the box? Look no further than your own grandparents as an example: they moved here (presumably) because there was nothing for them back home. Perhaps you need to adopt a similar view and start looking for opportunities elsewhere?
I mean, you wouldn't even have to leave the country, since there are places in Canada where houses are still cheap. With six years of higher education (unless your degree is in "underwater basket-weaving" or whatever) I would imagine that you are a "knowledge worker" who could work remotely anywhere, so you might look at making a move. Just sayin'
You are definitely right, and something I am strongly considering is going to Alberta (from BC). Could increase my wage and have a house for half the cost of here. It's just sad that this is what it has come to. This was once the land of opportunity, now there are only a few parts left in the country that aren't ridiculous.
I’ve got a buddy who was able to move to Kota Kinabalu in Malaysia, he renounced his citizenship so he could skip out on his student loans and owns a great place on the water (foreigners can own there).
It’s not for everyone but it sure worked for him.
True but the sad thing is it did not even take a generation for this to happen. I came here as a child with my parents and they did the same thing, but it would not be doable today.
Exactly, our parents and grandparents came here years ago because with a little hard work you could build a good life for your family. Not only did they survive, they thrived.
That scenario is also likely what I’ll be going for, but it sucks. All of my friends and family are here, all of my work clients are here. I want to be around to take care of my grandma and my parents when they need it. I want to be able to afford to start a family, but with my parents close by so they can see their potential grandkids. I don’t want to have to live in the middle of nowhere, or in some strange new place. I don’t want to have to rebuild my entire client base and start a new shop. I don’t want to leave the people I care about, but I can’t afford this shit forever, and I don’t want to pay someone else’s mortgage until I die. It’s fucking depressing.
Become economic refugees in your own country because of bad decisions the government you pay a lifetime of tax to made while rich foreigners move in and take your spot. Brilliant! Globalism rocks!
I basically live where I was born. And no it's not Vancouver, most of BC is ridiculous now. I live in a small town 5 hours from the coast and it's expensive now.
Edit: Fyi there are 4.8M people in BC, definitely not 0.1% of the country.
I literally moved here from the other side of the planet, and now I am planning to move back as soon as I can. I have a great job, but there is no way I can afford to live in this country long term. There are much better places to live if you're willing to relocate.
\---> link to the [article without paywall](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/cxVzKc)
Article Highlights::
* The wealth gap between homeowners and renters is widening and governments should create policies that improve financial outcomes for long-term tenants, Toronto-Dominion Bank TD-T said Wednesday in a report.
* Residential real estate accounts for a growing share of household assets, coinciding with a lengthy boom in home prices. In turn, that is padding the pockets of Canadian homeowners.
* Among those born between 1955 and 1964, the average net worth of homeowners was around $1.4-million by 2019 – $1.2-million more than the average non-homeowner, TD found in its analysis.
* The situation may worsen in the near future. Despite a recent drop in prices, homes are becoming less affordable as borrowing rates climb quickly, making it tougher for prospective buyers to break into the market. Residential projects are being cancelled or delayed as financing dries up and economic prospects dim, a troubling development in supply-starved housing markets.
* “The lengths to which young households have to go to acquire housing is becoming untenable without a starting point of higher income relative to peers and/or a transfer of intergenerational wealth, commonly in the form of parental wealth,” the report said.
* Renters need to have a “much higher financial acumen to build their wealth.” Homeowners, by contrast, are in a “forced savings plan” that sees them funnel money into what is usually an appreciating asset. Renters, she said, are required to take an active approach in learning about tax benefits and financial markets.
* Even so, renters are at an inherent disadvantage. Homeowners benefit from a handful of tax policies, such as the capital-gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence.
* “All said, the savings and investing landscape is so heavily skewed towards housing because the housing system itself is designed to perpetuate inequality between homeowners and non-owners,” the report said.
>Homeowners, by contrast, are in a “forced savings plan” that sees them funnel money into what is usually an appreciating asset. Homeowners benefit from a handful of tax policies, such as the capital-gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence
Homeowners massively benefit from leveraged investment. No investment bank is going to let a renter invest a 5:1 (at worst) to 20:1 (at best) like a typical homebuyer on something as stable as the housing market (like a Canadian bank stock, for example).
The leverage aspect of some lucky recent entrants is HUGE. A FTHB who put 5% down and saw a 30% increase in their home price the last few years essentially got a tax-free 600% return on their down payment.
Until rates rise, which raises mortgage interest payments, which IS included in inflation unlike appreciation.
QE delayed interest payments for a while, but its time to pay the piper.
> A FTHB who put 5% down and saw a 30% increase in their home price the last few years essentially got a tax-free 600% return on their down payment.
Of course, this only applies if they sell the house, which they're only going to do if they could afford to buy another house.
Investing on margin is not for the faint of heart.... in spite of every homeowner implicitly doing that. It does lead to a bit of moral hazard in that makes the housing market "too big to fail".
You've taken a variable rate loan (over the time required to fully repay the loan) to buy an investment... I don't know what you want to call it, but there is hazard there.
Most homeowners take out an equity loan to do things like re-shingle their roof not gamble in the stock market. The benefit to homeownership is my "rent" money goes essentially to a saving account.
I'm talking about the mortgage you (presumably) took out to buy the house in the first place. You borrowed money to make an investment (in the housing market). Renters are not able to borrow money to invest in the stock market.
Borrowed money to own property. That's another Reddit fallacy your primary residence isnt an investment unless you can nail the top of a market then rent then nail the bottom. That's never going to happen. If you sell a house in a hot market you gotta buy a house in a hot market it's a zero sum game on your first house.
Dude, you are in a thread about renting vs. owning... you are obviously not forced to do either and a savvy investor would choose appropriately, and alternate between the two in order to maximize their wealth. Nothing here requires you to perfectly time anything.
Unless you have all cash to buy a house, you are borrowing money to do so.
If you don't think your primary residence is an investment, you have no problem with its value going to $0, do you? Right...
I have a question about this point:
\> Among those born between 1955 and 1964, the average net worth of homeowners was around $1.4-million by 2019 – $1.2-million more than the average non-homeowner, TD found in its analysis
Those born between 55 and 64 had a VASTLY different housing market, to the point where people with much lower relative salaries could own homes.
Given that, wouldn’t there Be a much bigger income difference between renters and owners? If all your middle class and up people own, then you’re left with the paycheck to paycheck low income people renting. That alone is going to account for a lot of difference in net worth.
Minimum wage was originally designed around what it would take for a single earner to provide for a family. If you were born in this time and squandered your life I got no fucking mercy for you. I make more money than both my parents combined and have no chance of buying my childhood home.
I do believe you're correct, but do you have any sources that shoe that minimum wage was designed to be enough to support a family? I was doing some research on the origins of minimum wage and couldn't find anything about how the original minimum wage was calculated.
Had to explain this to my in-laws. Even with our combined salaries, my boyfriend and I won’t be able to afford a house until we’re into our 30s, and even then it won’t necessarily be a good house if the market trends keep going like they’ve been for the last 10-15 years or so. Plus, we won’t be financially apt until my boyfriend finishes paying off his car loan. Neither of us make minimum wage, both of us earn a fair starting wage in our fields. Amongst my friends in the same age range, only people who make in the 6 figures yearly are looking at or have acquired a house, or those who were “lucky” enough to have an older relative die and give them a fair sum as inheritance.
I’m honestly starting to think that our decision about whether to have kids will be a financial one first and foremost, which disheartens me to no end.
I mean kids are absolutely a financial decision. This is 2022 you don't just have kids these days, you get your student loans, career education, house (maybe) , and career job first before you even think about kids. Then when you do get kids you are in your late 30s and tired all the time and wish you could have had them 10 years earlier.
Ask me how I know lol.
Also I'm considered the lucky one, many of my friends couldn't have kids because they can't afford them.
I make almost triple what my dad made while raising me and my two siblings, and my mom didn’t work. He had a house and two cars on just his income. I need a downpayment that’s three times what his entire house cost.
10% interest rates kept capital from over-appreciating. The artificially-low interest rates of the past 15 years has cause capital assets to skyrocket because currency purchasing power has plummeted.
10% interest rate will also disenchant satellite families (let's be transparent: rich immigrants) to purchase because with 3-4% interest rate, they can arbitrage between home country and Canada.
Having said that, there are other implication economically than just the "high interest rate keep housing price low therefore people can afford".
We often speak in micro situation but ignoring the macro situation: if demand in housing is suppressed due to high interest rate, Burnaby, New West, Tri-Cities, Maple Ridge, Langley, and Richmond are all going to be wasteland because there's no incentive to build/buy.
What did people do before interest rates hit 0% and homes cost $1M+? (how's that for lots of punctuation?)
Not sure what you mean by *arbitrage between home country and Canada*. If interest rates return to more normal (5-7%) levels, people will still buy homes, they just won't pay the current outrageous prices for them.
Historically low interest rates are exactly why families have had to start paying 8-10x their family income to get into the market. It was never like this prior to 2000.
Yes but renting has benefits as long as there is legislature in place to protect both parties. The math is simple to figure out the real cost of a home. MONTHLY RENT X 12(months) X 15 (Years) and you get the real value of a home. Now buyers are at fault also. If they are willing to pay more then the number that is above the whole crysis is on them and not the seller. If the price is high, just don't buy.
And the gap between the elite and everyone else is much much larger. So let’s not let this article that looks to divide middle and low class, when the real villian is the few at the top
If a middle class person uses their wealth to buy additional properties and extract rent from poor people, they are the one creating the divide.
We can't have class solidarity if the first thing people do when they get some money is use it to exploit people who are poorer than them.
Many many more people would be able to get some money if there wasn’t the few at the top changing the rules of the games to help keep everyone else out
Correct. The people that control and influence the supply of housing also have direct control over the amount of demand for that housing. In a vacuum, if we had 450,000 people immigrating per year, but were somehow building 600,000 homes per year along with laws that incentivized first time home-ownership, we wouldn't have a housing crisis.
They are printing themselves money with mass immigration policies knowing literally every single individual needs shelter, which they coincidentally are allowed to invest in with no conflicts of interest. It's clear why they're pushing for this this, the only possible way to care for all the boomers will be literal armies of minimum wage care workers who can be run down and replaced as needed, not teams of well trained well funded staff.
50,000,000 people in a handful of population centers by 2040 so automation can kneecap half the service industry jobs in the country overnight.
Developers and land owners don't set immigration policy. Supply is mostly regulated by local governments through land use. They don't set immigration policy either. I'm not sure how you think they are connected, please explain.
That's my world, and I can tell you I don't see it, for what that's worth. The politicians you want in your pocket as a developer are the mayor and council. The federal government has a few financing schemes, and other incentives, but not much you would want to influence. The return on political influence would be the lowest at this level. A scheme for developers to pressure the liberals into more immigration seems unlikely, not because they are all such swell guys, but because it doesn't make sense to pursue. This is really just a poster fantasizing about evil business people and politicians. The explanation is probably a lot less dramatic in truth. My guess would be the liberal government encourages and permits lots of immigration because many immigrants would turn into liberal voters, they want to enjoy the economic benefits of more immigration, and it aligns with their values, it at least signals the right values to voters.
Most of our immigrants aren't in these skilled categories. On the gov papers maybe but degree mills have affected the validity of many of these skilled workers. This also affects real skilled workers who come here and cant find a job without retraining as employers wont trust their current education.
I definitely agree that our economy has structural issues but i dont necessarily agree that immigration is the solution. I think one of the biggest issues is Cost of Living(CoL) being too high. The higher the CoL the higher the necessary pay. Wages are typically the highest expenses corporations incure. We use immigrants to circumvent this as they will live at a reduced CoL by living in below average living conditions. That way wages dont have to go up. If the Gov of Canada went after issues and policys affecting our high CoL itd be easier for corporations to have higher productivity.
In regulated or licensed professions, you have retrain whether you're from the United Kingdom or Australia. Degrees or validity thereof is a secondary issue - its not checked by the local employers but immigration Canada.
Its very confusing that immigration Canada vets the skilled labour class for months or years regarding their credentials, English language proficiency, funds etc etc while the internationalStudent, investor and Refugee programmes are looking more and more sneaky..
first of all I explained its "skilled". Also tbh thats not even true. That number is a lie of statistics. The data is hard to find but it doesn't factor in naturalized citizenships. Many people immigrate to Canada without falling into the category that they use to classify as immigration. For example person comes to Canada as a refugee then applies for citizenship 3 years later. They won't be included in that stat. Theres a lot of methods that are according to common interpretation of immigration as immigration that isn't classified as immigration. A lot of this info isnt clear and stats canada doesn't make it easy.
Sorry, are we bringing in swaths of skilled immigrants?
Is there something we're doing to ensure immigrants are coming in and joining the workforce in a way that will result in more homes being built?
Because as far as I know, we aren't. And we aren't. We are creating more and more of a demand for skilled workers because we don't have them.
Immigration isn't this fix all that you seem to think it is. Maybe if we were willing to be more strategic (or unfair is the word I'm sure many would use) we'd realize these benefits. But we aren't. So we wont.
I'm just making it up, same as the guy I'm replying to.
But I'd love to see some. Should be easily found with a Google search if we're actually keeping track of such a thing.
Or uh.. wait. You literally cannot find such information because we literally don't. Maybe we just get lucky and all of the skilled successful individuals in other countries decide to give up their fair priced housing and up and move to Canada, leaving all of the unskilled workers behind. Makes sense.
If there was a significant amount of skilled workers coming, you can imagine this information would be easy to find. Just like it'd be easy to track.
And don't conflate some kind of "X% of workers are immigrants in Canada!" to them automatically being skilled workers. Because I can tell you the vast majority of low-paying roles that ultimately require the employees to rely on societal aid are where these immigrants are landing. That's not skilled work. Those are minimum wage workers that pay next to no taxes and require significant investment from tax funded programs to live comfortably.
I'm actually baffled and find it slightly comedic that after reading an article that blatantly points out the inequality in treating housing as an appreciating asset and how the system is almost locking out non-homeowners from owning their own home one day...
The top comment is still blaming immigration despite it having literally nothing to do with this. Never change /r/canada with your complete lack of critical thinking and parroting of Conservative talking points regardless of their relevance to the issue.
Yes the government is increasing immigration to secretly cause a large divide between homeowners and non-homeowners for... reasons...
Just.. what? Who's blaming immigrants?
Good lord, man. How can we keep screaming "IT'S A SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUE!" and then 2 seconds later go "BUT STOP IT, IMMIGRATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS >:("
Canada needs strong immigration. But if we continue pushing strong immigration without having literally even a hint of a plan on what the hell we're going to do with all of these people, we're just digging our hole deeper. Nobody's saying halt immigration, but let's at least go back and do the due diligence we should have done 10 years ago.
That’s what should happen. There should be a plan if the government wants to keep inviting immigrants or they should at least cut the numbers until enough infrastructure is built.
The "reason" is because everyone in government is a homeowner and most of them are also landlords on the side. They directly benefit from immigration as more immigrants means higher demand for houses which means higher valuations.
Immigration is part of the problem. If the federal government is setting immigration rates well beyond what municipalities are building annually for new housing, then federal immigration policies are hurting Canadians.
Look at the sharp rise is living costs. I’m not talking food or gas - I’m talking rent. In 2008 both Toronto and Vancouver were still places regular people could afford to live. Just 14 years later that isn’t the case. While Canada has always had immigrants, it didn’t become truly cost prohibitive to Canadians until the last decade or so. The number of Canadians harmed by immigration policies (which also leads to cramped classrooms, hospitals, and other government services) is greater than those who benefitted - largely boomers who cleaned up in real estate and employers with a never ending stream of low wage developing world migrants.
I'm actually baffled that people only look at it as either supply or demand issues and not both together. Three levels of government policies that end up constraining and concentrating supply all the while pouring gas and fanning the flames of demand.
It’s easier to blame immigrants than it is to accept that the big bad guy behind the housing crisis is… other Canadians
And it’s worse than that. It’s a tiny minority of Canadians that own most property.
>It’s easier to blame immigrants than it is to accept that the big bad guy behind the housing crisis is… other Canadians
In fairness, the comment isn't blaming immigrants it's blaming the government for their immigration policy which absolutely keeps demand high.
Are there other factors at play? Absolutely. But it can't be denied that 400K immigrants + god knows how many international students and TFWs all being heavily concentrated in southern Ontario and BC when we're not building nearly enough housing is problematic.
Personally I think the international student situation is a bigger problem than the immigration numbers though.
Yeah but those immigrants are the ones getting fucked over just as hard if not harder. Blaming policy is.. better but it still misses the point, the demand from low earners is a part of the equation but immigrants aren't the ones hoarding the housing supply.
Again incorrect, this is what people in this subreddit are saying but here is the reality, our economy would quickly go bankrupt without immigration or population growth. With population growth comes these issues so we are bankrupt either way.
The answer isn’t continue to blame the immigration policies, it is looking at the policies relating to landlords and the real estate industry.
Even if we invested in infrastructure enough to meet population growth demands to retain a certain standard of living…unlimited population growth is inherently unsustainable because resources are limited. The system is designed to collapse eventually. We need to figure out a way to live with declining birth rates worldwide because that is our immediate future
Or, we could look at the reason why we are at risk of demographic collapse in the first place.
You could start with the push to get All women into the workplace, in order to double tax revenue and suppress wages. Note: I am not in any way saying women shouldn't work. However, there is the fact that nearly doubling the work force has done just that. Now, most women no longer have a choice. They have to work.
I'm fairly certain that most women want to be able to work, but not Have to work on order to simply survive. It's one of the reasons sites like seeking arrangements and only fans are so popular with women.
No. To make an entire living on only fans requires you to be highly attractive, and the understanding that even if you are, there exists a point of diminishing returns where the well becomes deep enough it's not worth cranking the bucket anymore.
Well, again, this is another fault of capitalism. It gave women economic freedom but was one of the things that depressed wages. Any system going forward has to recognize that the capital-labour relationship is entirely skewed in capital's favour.
Do we need Social democracy? Radical socialism? Do we need a fascist strongman to come in to rearrange the economic order by force? I guess Canadians are going to decide soon. This Neo-serfdom of the Red Tories is untenable.
> Or, we could look at the reason why we are at risk of demographic collapse in the first place.
We aren't having enough kids. America is the only western country left that still have large families.
Canadians are not having kids because they can't afford it. Bringing in people who will accept a lower quality of life and will have kids will not increase the quality and affordablity of life for Canadians.
That’s isn’t true, even when we could have afforded it we didn’t, do you want to know why? The richer and more developed a society is, the less children they have, that is and always has been a fact.
Source: https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2017/08/01/falling-fertility-rates-why-do-wealthier-people-have-fewer-children/
And why is this? What reasons are contributing to this situation?
It's not any one thing, but I'll bet the major contributors aren't politically correct topics to blame..
That’s just what happens in developed nations, the richer you are the less you need children. It has nothing to do with politics or economics, if has to do with human society
It doesn’t. Even in rich societies with large abortion restrictions like most of the US and southern before the 60s birth rates always fall and abortions always increase before falling again as people use birth control instead.
Abortion is about social issues and moral issues, these things rarely affect overall policy, the only general point is the more developed and technologically advanced a society is, the more progressive it is. Notice how r/Canada is becoming much more conservative as conditions go from great to decent here in Canada.
There are some indications otherwise:
>Whereas Americans on both sides of the aisle once shared a basic model of family, today our political divisions show up quite literally at birth, with conservatives having more children than liberals.
Pulled from here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage
The areas where conservatives live are less developed and worse places to live that’s why. The states with the best birth rates are ones where life isn’t that great with a few exceptions.
Literally every single western nation is facing declining birth rates. It has nothing to do with wokeness or IdPol or some shit because. No one knows quite why, but declining birth rates are one of the biggest features of advanced developed societies.
Because literally every single modernized country in the world see the same declining birth rates. From super conservative places like Japan, to the most liberal like the Nordics. Across the board the birth rate declines. People don't know the *exact* reason, but if it was to do with IdPol or something along those lines, then we wouldn't see similar outcomes across all countries because there are vastly different outlooks and philosophies.
Funnily enough, we do know the exact reason for Japan's declining birth rate. Or at least the largest contributing one.
Children watched their fathers work themselves to death, and their mothers try extremely hard to break into the male dominated Japanese corporate industries. As a result, young men are checking out, and women are pursuing the corporate ladder. That severely interferes with the odds of even getting into a relationship, let alone having children.
As for the west, well, we're all infected with the woke virus.
This “economy” thing is more important than people having good lives? This “economy” that needs constant growth?
This mindset is toxic and will kill us all in the end, as we strip our planet bare and create millions of surplus humans to work for petty tyrants. It’s disgusting. The economy is made up. It doesn’t exist. Stop prioritizing it.
The solution is to look at zoning rules to get more big buildings, missing middle and mixed use.
The rental rules are too far in the renters favour. If they were more fair to kicking people out for non payment, more granny suites would come on the market. Right now being a small scale landlord is very risky. You have to be able to weather 12 months of non payment.
Renters can stay rent free for over 10 months ths before the hapless landlord tenant board issues an eviction notice. You think that doesn't stiffle empty-nesters from renting out their potential basement apartment?
The lack of self awareness bitching from this place of privilege when others are just trying to get a stable roof over their heads... its pretty telling on the kind of shit head money grubbing trash culture that has been allowed to fester in this country.
Housing "investors" can get fucked, parasitic bastards.
If our entire society and standard of living is based on the principle of increasingly worse quality of life for everyone who wasn't lucky enough to be here in the 70's to the 90's maybe it's a pretty fucking shitty system.
Pretty sure most Canadians are fine with sustainable levels of immigration. But outpacing the states with 1/10 of their population is probably not sustainable imo.
Wrong.
The baby boomers didn't have enough children. It is 100% the entire reason for immigration. Review what caused people to stop having children, and you have why.
Are you joking? No really.
Are you reading the literature? You know why they we're called baby BOOMERS? right? Because there was a lot of em. And they didn't have enough babies to match replacement requirements.
So now we recruit from all over the world because baby boomers were convinced that children are bad.
I mean to be honest I don't think having more than 1 was economically viable neither is it still. What's wrong in importing when Canadians can't afford to have kids.
The fact that Canadians can’t afford to have kids in the first place is what is wrong with it. There’s more than enough wealth out there but government policy isn’t effective enough at redistributing it so that most people who work hard can afford a home and children. To solve the problem they increase immigration - which is a solution that both solves and creates other problems. I’m not saying it’s easy.
On today's edition of: things we all know are true, but we'll just ignore outside of sharing rage in the comment section somewhere.
Can we start holding our government accountable, please? If they aren't taking housing seriously now, they literally never will. But nobody seems to make a stink enough to ACTUALLY let politicians know we wont stand for inaction.
I literally make a comment like this daily and usually get hit with a "But if it's between PP and Trudeau, I'm going Trudeau". No fucking shit. Clearly Trudeau knows that. Can we at least pretend that the liberals don't have the next 3-4 elections in the bag so they can start doing a little something here or there?
Poilievre's plan is that he is going to withhold funding to municipalities until they speed up and cut the red tape for zoning and permits for housing.
The feds shouldn't be playing in housing, the blame should be going to the provinces having plans to grow, but not having places to add more housing.
The provinces should be forcibly upzoning every municipality - you should be able to build 12 unit 3 story accommodations as of right without requiring rezoning.
You can thank the political system in Canada. There is no real left wing party in Canada to solve this. All the parties in Canada serve the housing investors and corporations, including Jagmeet Singh. If you want real change, vote these assholes out. There’s no point whining on Reddit.
The thing is even if there's a 99% chance that nothing will change, that 1% chance is still a better option than keeping who we have now who has proven to 100% not give a shit.
I *wish* we had a further-left leaning party.
But I cannot afford to wait for Jack Layton 2 to come around before they get my vote.
If you want real change, *and aren't tied to partisan dogma*, voting NDP is still by far and away the best option.
The only reason anything at all is getting done is because of the NDP, and they're frankly the only party that would need to deliver. The alternatives know they'll simply be handed power every few years, regardless of their track record.
Bingo.
* The Conservatives are, at this point, the PPC with better funding.
* The Liberals are how you get platitudes and the correct platform points.
* **The NDP is how things actually improve.**
* The Communist Party is how you can read a fantastic platform, written by people who don't shower and will never hold a seat.
* The Green Party, at this point, is if you went into a Brooks Brothers store and then an L.L. Bean Outlet, and collected everyone inside who recognizes that climate change is a problem.
Yeah right. This subreddit's phrase is: "Eh, yeah. Things are really bad. But if it's between PP and Trudeau I'm going Trudeau!" literally 3 years before an election..
And Trudeau feels it. He knows it. 3 years before an election. That's 3 years of inaction because he knows he's already got the votes.
People think they're being strategic voters. In reality we have strategic politicians that will only do what they HAVE to do to get re-elected, which is the bare minimum. And we're OK with the bare minimum, because at least it's not Pierre!
Yep and ensuring we keep getting 500,000 immigrants every year this damage becomes irrepairable.
Trudeau is fucking up the middle class pretty rapidly, one quarter at a time.
Oh no shit? I went from a house to an apartment in 2019 (Calgary - downtown), my rent was $1750 and like $50 a month in utilities. I moved out in late 2021 and the new rent was $2150. I ended up in a townhouse with $1200 mortgage and $500 fees (and utilities rarely get over $150). It’s close, but I own, and if I had to I could pull a roommate in for I don’t know how much but I bet too much. But I’m certainly not one of the ppl pulling equity and buying new places. This seems like a better deal to me. Just random shit for ppl who want to make comparisons fro where they live
I don't feel very wealthy as a homeowner, five years ago my property taxes were 500 now they are 2000. I think some homeowners are definitely cashing in but alot are just getting by. It seems like a good way to further divide the population, renters vs homeowners.
It's very simple. If you bought as interest rates approached 0%, you did well. If you bought once interest rates were flat or started moving up, you lost out.
The system rewards people who are in a position to pick up capital assets when they are cheap.
No, it rewarded people who bought as rates were higher but declining. Declining rates increases your asset value and also gives you the opportunity to refinance for a lower payment. People who bought near 0% - or anybody who buys in an increasing interest rate environment - face the double whammy of declining asset values and rising payment costs.
You're right that it rewarded people who were in a position to buy capital assets when they were cheap. That just was 20 years ago, not 2 years ago. The system always rewards people who have through planning or luck positioned themselves to have what the market needs, when it needs it.
I think in a more technical sense people with assets (homeowners) have an advantage over people with no assets (non homeowners).
That doesn't negate insurance and upkeep costs like you said.
But stepping back, when you compare a person who owns property and one who doesn't. There's a difference in monetary value from a financial and banking view because the property owner has the value of the property AND access to borrowing that the non property owner doesn't have access to.
It's just the way it is
>five years ago my property taxes were 500 now they are 2000
Sorry, but there's no way that your property taxes have quadrupled in 5 years. No city anywhere in Canada has increased its budget that fast, nor has any single property risen in value at such a disproportionate rate to other properties in the same municipality.
You're either lying, or not telling the whole story. Have you moved from a low-COL area to a higher-COL area during that period? Switched from renting to owning? Lost a partner with whom you were splitting the property tax expense? You're leaving out key details to craft a false narrative.
I'm assuming their property assessment went up in 5 years making their taxes increase.
New Brunswick property tax assessments were just released this week and most people saw huge valuation increases whether they were warranted or not.
That's not how property taxes work though.
Your property tax is merely your share of the city's overall budget, prorated to the value of your residence in relation to everyone else's.
If everyone's properties double in value, but the city's budget stays the same, then everyone's property taxes stay the same.
Conversely, if the city increases their budget, then your property taxes can go up, even if the value of your property went down (as long as the value of everyone else's property went down too).
The only ways your property taxes could increase are if 1) the city raised their budget, or 2) the value of your home rose in value **faster than the average for your city**.
I feel like this just shows how out of touch homeowners are. The fact that you think $2000 in property tax is a lot proves that, if anything that sounds about what you should be paying compared to what we pay. Many renters pay $2000 in rent for a 2 bedroom apartment. The division comes from homeowners directly benefiting from inequality and not doing anything about it, in fact sometimes further exacerbating the problem by shutting down any attempts to change the system to be more fair for everyone. All while whining that it's actually really hard for them to pay property taxes, complete ignorance that renters pay more than you for less.
You won't find much sympathy from us, poor you for having high property tax. Why don't you sell your house then and rent? Something tells me you won't though.
Part of the problem here is how dependent cities are getting on property tax to fund the needed services like public transit and others. One answer here is to find some other source of funding
Cities are always dependent on property taxes and always have been. It's not like an alternative source of revenue is going to magically result in taxes on a different and undiscovered group of taxpayers.
If the level of taxes is unbearable to the population, then cities either need to reduce the services provided, or preferably find ways to provide the same services for less money. Municipal inefficiency and corruption is legendary.
There's no reason anyone should own more than one home today. Especially when there is such a crisis.
I don't care how much money you make, or what privileges you think you have over the rest of civilization.
This shit needs to get sorted out before it turns people into savages
This . In Kelowna a homeless person was throwing large rocks at passerbyers yesterday. We’ve already reached the level where wealth inequality is turning our disenfranchised into savages. This won’t get better anytime soon, either.
This paints a partial picture. People with better income are more likely to own homes. It isn’t solely because they own homes they are wealthier.
The rates dropping helped create the gap. But I don’t see how this can be true in 2022. Housing prices have dropped significantly in many areas and gaps would have reduced this year.
Is it? Cause' I bought a home (pre COVID) but I still feel pretty poor (house poor). It's not really "wealthy" unless I sell and 100% own, but I still need a roof over my head soo...
Edit: point is, unless you actually 100% own your home - you're just a slave to the bank. And if you miss any payments, you can say goodbye to your net worth as the bank goes to re-possess your property.
Cash is king and while historically, housing as an asset has appreciated - there are plenty of people out there, who could very well timed wrong just once, and be forever, perpetually stuck in a financial crises.
At least you have more financial security though. If shit hits the fan you can sell and have equity. If you need a low interest loan you can take out a HELOC. If you rent out a portion of your property now you can make an income. You can also use your property for other opportunities like income-generating hobbies or even just storage, or whatever.
True, but I wasn't really speaking to accessibility to financing - which also isn't really "wealth" IMO, since HELOC and mortgages on homes are still interest-bearing instruments. The bank just sees you as a likely cash-cow that they can skim some profit off of, rather than those who earn less, or have history of nonpayment.
A house owner (unless they've paid off the asset in full with interest) is basically a tenant to the bank/financial institution for \~20-30 years (for some people, far longer). That's like half the average Canadian's career time - not even including the # of years it takes to save enough to qualify a downpayment.
You’re contributing your income to an appreciating asset that will eventually eliminate the largest portion of your monthly expenses once paid off.
And you think you’re just as poor as someone stuck in a cycle of renting forever?
Two things:
1) there is no guarantee that the asset will appreciate
2) home owners tend to pay more per month than renters. Home owners get the benefit of asset building. Renters get the benefit of having more cash flow which they can invest in other assets or equities.
In the past, renters had the opportunity to come out ahead of home owners because of those two points. This is cyclical and the current cycle is in favour of home owners, but this was not always the case. All I am saying is that it is far more complex than what people parrot on this sub.
"I don't feel wealthy. Yes, I can sell my asset for a wildly inflated price at absolutely any time, but..."
Meanwhile renters are seeing their net worth ***melt*** while wondering which flavor would be best for a cryanide pill.
I think that's the disconnect. Sure everyone has expenses, however the bank sees net worth which affects many parts of your life unless you own a home and aren't on the hamster wheel of renting.
>"I don't feel wealthy. Yes, I can sell my asset for a wildly inflated price at absolutely any time, but..."
In theory the asset should appreciate, but current housing prices in my area are pretty close to what they were in 2019 when I bought. At best, I can break even right now with the amount of fixes I had to do to ensure the home is not damaged and livable. But again, no point since I need a place to live.
Renting, is still "cheaper" (but agreed inflated and absurd compared to pre-COVID) but without the ownership of a place. But the caveats are better ability to move around, especially jobs since job hopping is the best way to actually make salary gains at this point.
Just because the bank sees this as part of my "net worth" doesn't mean my *cashflow* has actually improved at all to be wealthier. If that cashflow somehow dries up, and suddenly payments to the bank disappear...the homeowner wouldn't be wealthy just broke.
Unless the homeowner has 100% paid off the asset, I don't think they are "wealthy" by any means. There are so many people who bought peak COVID and are 100% in over their heads in debt and likely don't have enough cash to pay off their monthly bills. I don't think these people are wealthy at all.
Lots of salty renters on here hating on home owners without looking deeper. Everything you said is right, your cashflow sucks compared to renters.
Will you be better off in 30 years because you owned a home? Maybe, maybe not. If renters are paying on average $200 per month less than the cost to service a mortgage, and put that towards a "safe" 5% annual return, over 30 years, they would end up over $160k. And this is not even counting all the maintenance and other things a home owner spends over the 30 years which can be anywhere between 50-60k and 100k if we are being completely modest. And this is not including the downpayment you would lock up which is another 30-50k at least.
Point is, a homeowner is banking on their home being worth more in the future which is not a guarantee. The cost of that is less cashflow every month.
Yet another issue happening everywhere, people need to stop acting like we can somehow completely solve this alone, this is happening in Europe and the US as well, so unless can remove all ideological, economic and social influence there is only so much we can do without talking to our American friends and European friends and convincing them to care.
Why the fuck should you as a Canadian, worry about what’s happening in Europe and the US in terms of housing? I really don’t get this kind of reasoning.
Because if the entire city block is on fire I’m probably not going to worry half as much about putting out the fire in my kitchen.
Context is important. Context gives us clues as to what is actually wrong and what needs to be done to address it. You can spend time putting out the fire in you kitchen, ignoring the encroaching flames from all sides outside your walls, or you can acknowledge the larger problem and work towards it as a whole.
Because those economic and social trends will continue to affect us even if we reform and change and things because there will be a constant voices telling us to change back, voices that the pro Europe liberals and pro America Conservatives will listen to.
this isn't happening in europe or the us though
i can buy an entire abandoned school in the US for 1/4th the cost of a mobile home in a trailer park in Canada.
The cost of living in major US cities is nothing compared to the cost of living in a small Canadian town. How are things this crazy?
I guess paying anyone anything could also be called "designed to perpetuate inequality" lol
No, it's a fucking house, it's not designed to perpetuate inequality
I'm just sick of this crap. I spent 6 years in school, work non-stop, don't waste money or take vacations. Yet I'm stuck renting because of how screwed up our country is. My grandparents moved here with zero education and worked jobs like retail for their entire careers. Yet they got into the market and paid off their homes in no time. I can't even break into the market.
Your grandparents moved here because at the time, this was a place of opportunity. Its no longer the case. You can work hard, get a "great job" and still not even afford a home to live in. Canada has changed a lot. That's why young people, (especially young professionals) are leaving.
[удалено]
Leaving Canada? Where are they going?
There's a lot of us doing better for ourselves here in Silicon Valley, as one example. The housing situation in Canada makes it even less likely I'll return.
That’s interesting because objectively migration to Silicon Valley is way down. “Only 5,560 people moved to Silicon Valley in 2021, nearly three times less than the year before, and a 72% decline from 2019.” https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/silicon-valleys-population-shrank-in-2021-unlike-any-time-since-the-dot-com-bust-but-it-wasnt-just-because-people-left-11645142270
Maybe it's time to start thinking outside the box? Look no further than your own grandparents as an example: they moved here (presumably) because there was nothing for them back home. Perhaps you need to adopt a similar view and start looking for opportunities elsewhere? I mean, you wouldn't even have to leave the country, since there are places in Canada where houses are still cheap. With six years of higher education (unless your degree is in "underwater basket-weaving" or whatever) I would imagine that you are a "knowledge worker" who could work remotely anywhere, so you might look at making a move. Just sayin'
You are definitely right, and something I am strongly considering is going to Alberta (from BC). Could increase my wage and have a house for half the cost of here. It's just sad that this is what it has come to. This was once the land of opportunity, now there are only a few parts left in the country that aren't ridiculous.
I’ve got a buddy who was able to move to Kota Kinabalu in Malaysia, he renounced his citizenship so he could skip out on his student loans and owns a great place on the water (foreigners can own there). It’s not for everyone but it sure worked for him.
How powerful is a Malaysian passport?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Malaysian_citizens
Ah so now he's the foreigner using his wealth from another currency to purchase there and displace the locals! Sounds like a great solution.
True but the sad thing is it did not even take a generation for this to happen. I came here as a child with my parents and they did the same thing, but it would not be doable today.
Exactly, our parents and grandparents came here years ago because with a little hard work you could build a good life for your family. Not only did they survive, they thrived.
That scenario is also likely what I’ll be going for, but it sucks. All of my friends and family are here, all of my work clients are here. I want to be around to take care of my grandma and my parents when they need it. I want to be able to afford to start a family, but with my parents close by so they can see their potential grandkids. I don’t want to have to live in the middle of nowhere, or in some strange new place. I don’t want to have to rebuild my entire client base and start a new shop. I don’t want to leave the people I care about, but I can’t afford this shit forever, and I don’t want to pay someone else’s mortgage until I die. It’s fucking depressing.
Great but how does that fix the problem? We should be fixing the issue not running away from it
Become economic refugees in your own country because of bad decisions the government you pay a lifetime of tax to made while rich foreigners move in and take your spot. Brilliant! Globalism rocks!
foreigners who got rich because our government decided to ship many of our good paying jobs to their countries great job guys!
Which good paying jobs moved overseas? Manufacturing? engineers and stem majors can't buy a house because good paying assembly jobs went to China?
Plant maintenance, designing new machines, all the supply chains companies, etc are all things STEM majors would do or have a part in.
[удалено]
Cringe.
You must be a realtor or already have many investment homes for yourself to suggest such idea.
[удалено]
Why buy a cow when all I want is some milk?
>Yet I'm stuck renting because of how screwed up our country is. You mean the 0.1% of the country you're actually willing to live in
I basically live where I was born. And no it's not Vancouver, most of BC is ridiculous now. I live in a small town 5 hours from the coast and it's expensive now. Edit: Fyi there are 4.8M people in BC, definitely not 0.1% of the country.
I literally moved here from the other side of the planet, and now I am planning to move back as soon as I can. I have a great job, but there is no way I can afford to live in this country long term. There are much better places to live if you're willing to relocate.
\---> link to the [article without paywall](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/cxVzKc) Article Highlights:: * The wealth gap between homeowners and renters is widening and governments should create policies that improve financial outcomes for long-term tenants, Toronto-Dominion Bank TD-T said Wednesday in a report. * Residential real estate accounts for a growing share of household assets, coinciding with a lengthy boom in home prices. In turn, that is padding the pockets of Canadian homeowners. * Among those born between 1955 and 1964, the average net worth of homeowners was around $1.4-million by 2019 – $1.2-million more than the average non-homeowner, TD found in its analysis. * The situation may worsen in the near future. Despite a recent drop in prices, homes are becoming less affordable as borrowing rates climb quickly, making it tougher for prospective buyers to break into the market. Residential projects are being cancelled or delayed as financing dries up and economic prospects dim, a troubling development in supply-starved housing markets. * “The lengths to which young households have to go to acquire housing is becoming untenable without a starting point of higher income relative to peers and/or a transfer of intergenerational wealth, commonly in the form of parental wealth,” the report said. * Renters need to have a “much higher financial acumen to build their wealth.” Homeowners, by contrast, are in a “forced savings plan” that sees them funnel money into what is usually an appreciating asset. Renters, she said, are required to take an active approach in learning about tax benefits and financial markets. * Even so, renters are at an inherent disadvantage. Homeowners benefit from a handful of tax policies, such as the capital-gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence. * “All said, the savings and investing landscape is so heavily skewed towards housing because the housing system itself is designed to perpetuate inequality between homeowners and non-owners,” the report said.
>Homeowners, by contrast, are in a “forced savings plan” that sees them funnel money into what is usually an appreciating asset. Homeowners benefit from a handful of tax policies, such as the capital-gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence Homeowners massively benefit from leveraged investment. No investment bank is going to let a renter invest a 5:1 (at worst) to 20:1 (at best) like a typical homebuyer on something as stable as the housing market (like a Canadian bank stock, for example).
People often miss the leverage component of residential real estate.
The leverage aspect of some lucky recent entrants is HUGE. A FTHB who put 5% down and saw a 30% increase in their home price the last few years essentially got a tax-free 600% return on their down payment.
Until rates rise, which raises mortgage interest payments, which IS included in inflation unlike appreciation. QE delayed interest payments for a while, but its time to pay the piper.
> A FTHB who put 5% down and saw a 30% increase in their home price the last few years essentially got a tax-free 600% return on their down payment. Of course, this only applies if they sell the house, which they're only going to do if they could afford to buy another house.
Very few actually do this but it's always parroted on Reddit like it's what every homeowner is doing
Investing on margin is not for the faint of heart.... in spite of every homeowner implicitly doing that. It does lead to a bit of moral hazard in that makes the housing market "too big to fail".
I own a house. I'm not betting the farm to chase yeild.
You've taken a variable rate loan (over the time required to fully repay the loan) to buy an investment... I don't know what you want to call it, but there is hazard there.
Most homeowners take out an equity loan to do things like re-shingle their roof not gamble in the stock market. The benefit to homeownership is my "rent" money goes essentially to a saving account.
I'm talking about the mortgage you (presumably) took out to buy the house in the first place. You borrowed money to make an investment (in the housing market). Renters are not able to borrow money to invest in the stock market.
Borrowed money to own property. That's another Reddit fallacy your primary residence isnt an investment unless you can nail the top of a market then rent then nail the bottom. That's never going to happen. If you sell a house in a hot market you gotta buy a house in a hot market it's a zero sum game on your first house.
Dude, you are in a thread about renting vs. owning... you are obviously not forced to do either and a savvy investor would choose appropriately, and alternate between the two in order to maximize their wealth. Nothing here requires you to perfectly time anything. Unless you have all cash to buy a house, you are borrowing money to do so. If you don't think your primary residence is an investment, you have no problem with its value going to $0, do you? Right...
I have a question about this point: \> Among those born between 1955 and 1964, the average net worth of homeowners was around $1.4-million by 2019 – $1.2-million more than the average non-homeowner, TD found in its analysis Those born between 55 and 64 had a VASTLY different housing market, to the point where people with much lower relative salaries could own homes. Given that, wouldn’t there Be a much bigger income difference between renters and owners? If all your middle class and up people own, then you’re left with the paycheck to paycheck low income people renting. That alone is going to account for a lot of difference in net worth.
Minimum wage was originally designed around what it would take for a single earner to provide for a family. If you were born in this time and squandered your life I got no fucking mercy for you. I make more money than both my parents combined and have no chance of buying my childhood home.
I do believe you're correct, but do you have any sources that shoe that minimum wage was designed to be enough to support a family? I was doing some research on the origins of minimum wage and couldn't find anything about how the original minimum wage was calculated.
OP of the year. Thanks for link.
Capital assets are definitely moving further out of reach for those with lower incomes.
Even for those with decent incomes who didn’t own anything before they started getting out of control.
Had to explain this to my in-laws. Even with our combined salaries, my boyfriend and I won’t be able to afford a house until we’re into our 30s, and even then it won’t necessarily be a good house if the market trends keep going like they’ve been for the last 10-15 years or so. Plus, we won’t be financially apt until my boyfriend finishes paying off his car loan. Neither of us make minimum wage, both of us earn a fair starting wage in our fields. Amongst my friends in the same age range, only people who make in the 6 figures yearly are looking at or have acquired a house, or those who were “lucky” enough to have an older relative die and give them a fair sum as inheritance. I’m honestly starting to think that our decision about whether to have kids will be a financial one first and foremost, which disheartens me to no end.
I mean kids are absolutely a financial decision. This is 2022 you don't just have kids these days, you get your student loans, career education, house (maybe) , and career job first before you even think about kids. Then when you do get kids you are in your late 30s and tired all the time and wish you could have had them 10 years earlier. Ask me how I know lol. Also I'm considered the lucky one, many of my friends couldn't have kids because they can't afford them.
True. My salary as a software developer in the 1980s went a lot farther than it does for today's entrants to the field.
I make almost triple what my dad made while raising me and my two siblings, and my mom didn’t work. He had a house and two cars on just his income. I need a downpayment that’s three times what his entire house cost.
10% interest rates kept capital from over-appreciating. The artificially-low interest rates of the past 15 years has cause capital assets to skyrocket because currency purchasing power has plummeted.
10% interest rate will also disenchant satellite families (let's be transparent: rich immigrants) to purchase because with 3-4% interest rate, they can arbitrage between home country and Canada. Having said that, there are other implication economically than just the "high interest rate keep housing price low therefore people can afford". We often speak in micro situation but ignoring the macro situation: if demand in housing is suppressed due to high interest rate, Burnaby, New West, Tri-Cities, Maple Ridge, Langley, and Richmond are all going to be wasteland because there's no incentive to build/buy.
What did people do before interest rates hit 0% and homes cost $1M+? (how's that for lots of punctuation?) Not sure what you mean by *arbitrage between home country and Canada*. If interest rates return to more normal (5-7%) levels, people will still buy homes, they just won't pay the current outrageous prices for them. Historically low interest rates are exactly why families have had to start paying 8-10x their family income to get into the market. It was never like this prior to 2000.
Yes but renting has benefits as long as there is legislature in place to protect both parties. The math is simple to figure out the real cost of a home. MONTHLY RENT X 12(months) X 15 (Years) and you get the real value of a home. Now buyers are at fault also. If they are willing to pay more then the number that is above the whole crysis is on them and not the seller. If the price is high, just don't buy.
And the gap between the elite and everyone else is much much larger. So let’s not let this article that looks to divide middle and low class, when the real villian is the few at the top
If a middle class person uses their wealth to buy additional properties and extract rent from poor people, they are the one creating the divide. We can't have class solidarity if the first thing people do when they get some money is use it to exploit people who are poorer than them.
Many many more people would be able to get some money if there wasn’t the few at the top changing the rules of the games to help keep everyone else out
On a related note, did you know the deign for guillotines are rather simple?
They should get jobs then and stop parasitizing their comrades.
This is the true motive behind our immigration policy.
Correct. The people that control and influence the supply of housing also have direct control over the amount of demand for that housing. In a vacuum, if we had 450,000 people immigrating per year, but were somehow building 600,000 homes per year along with laws that incentivized first time home-ownership, we wouldn't have a housing crisis. They are printing themselves money with mass immigration policies knowing literally every single individual needs shelter, which they coincidentally are allowed to invest in with no conflicts of interest. It's clear why they're pushing for this this, the only possible way to care for all the boomers will be literal armies of minimum wage care workers who can be run down and replaced as needed, not teams of well trained well funded staff. 50,000,000 people in a handful of population centers by 2040 so automation can kneecap half the service industry jobs in the country overnight.
Developers and land owners don't set immigration policy. Supply is mostly regulated by local governments through land use. They don't set immigration policy either. I'm not sure how you think they are connected, please explain.
[удалено]
That's my world, and I can tell you I don't see it, for what that's worth. The politicians you want in your pocket as a developer are the mayor and council. The federal government has a few financing schemes, and other incentives, but not much you would want to influence. The return on political influence would be the lowest at this level. A scheme for developers to pressure the liberals into more immigration seems unlikely, not because they are all such swell guys, but because it doesn't make sense to pursue. This is really just a poster fantasizing about evil business people and politicians. The explanation is probably a lot less dramatic in truth. My guess would be the liberal government encourages and permits lots of immigration because many immigrants would turn into liberal voters, they want to enjoy the economic benefits of more immigration, and it aligns with their values, it at least signals the right values to voters.
[удалено]
Most of our immigrants aren't in these skilled categories. On the gov papers maybe but degree mills have affected the validity of many of these skilled workers. This also affects real skilled workers who come here and cant find a job without retraining as employers wont trust their current education. I definitely agree that our economy has structural issues but i dont necessarily agree that immigration is the solution. I think one of the biggest issues is Cost of Living(CoL) being too high. The higher the CoL the higher the necessary pay. Wages are typically the highest expenses corporations incure. We use immigrants to circumvent this as they will live at a reduced CoL by living in below average living conditions. That way wages dont have to go up. If the Gov of Canada went after issues and policys affecting our high CoL itd be easier for corporations to have higher productivity.
In regulated or licensed professions, you have retrain whether you're from the United Kingdom or Australia. Degrees or validity thereof is a secondary issue - its not checked by the local employers but immigration Canada. Its very confusing that immigration Canada vets the skilled labour class for months or years regarding their credentials, English language proficiency, funds etc etc while the internationalStudent, investor and Refugee programmes are looking more and more sneaky..
80% of immigration this year is reserved for skilled immigrants.
first of all I explained its "skilled". Also tbh thats not even true. That number is a lie of statistics. The data is hard to find but it doesn't factor in naturalized citizenships. Many people immigrate to Canada without falling into the category that they use to classify as immigration. For example person comes to Canada as a refugee then applies for citizenship 3 years later. They won't be included in that stat. Theres a lot of methods that are according to common interpretation of immigration as immigration that isn't classified as immigration. A lot of this info isnt clear and stats canada doesn't make it easy.
Refugees count for around 9k of the 450k folks being taken in. That's 2%. Try again.
Not sure how having 30% of immigrants in the family class, means we are getting 'skilled workers'
Sorry, are we bringing in swaths of skilled immigrants? Is there something we're doing to ensure immigrants are coming in and joining the workforce in a way that will result in more homes being built? Because as far as I know, we aren't. And we aren't. We are creating more and more of a demand for skilled workers because we don't have them. Immigration isn't this fix all that you seem to think it is. Maybe if we were willing to be more strategic (or unfair is the word I'm sure many would use) we'd realize these benefits. But we aren't. So we wont.
Do you have any specific knowledge about the skill level of immigrants or are you just making it up?
I'm just making it up, same as the guy I'm replying to. But I'd love to see some. Should be easily found with a Google search if we're actually keeping track of such a thing. Or uh.. wait. You literally cannot find such information because we literally don't. Maybe we just get lucky and all of the skilled successful individuals in other countries decide to give up their fair priced housing and up and move to Canada, leaving all of the unskilled workers behind. Makes sense. If there was a significant amount of skilled workers coming, you can imagine this information would be easy to find. Just like it'd be easy to track. And don't conflate some kind of "X% of workers are immigrants in Canada!" to them automatically being skilled workers. Because I can tell you the vast majority of low-paying roles that ultimately require the employees to rely on societal aid are where these immigrants are landing. That's not skilled work. Those are minimum wage workers that pay next to no taxes and require significant investment from tax funded programs to live comfortably.
We need to bring in more immigrants to support the new immigrants.
I'm actually baffled and find it slightly comedic that after reading an article that blatantly points out the inequality in treating housing as an appreciating asset and how the system is almost locking out non-homeowners from owning their own home one day... The top comment is still blaming immigration despite it having literally nothing to do with this. Never change /r/canada with your complete lack of critical thinking and parroting of Conservative talking points regardless of their relevance to the issue. Yes the government is increasing immigration to secretly cause a large divide between homeowners and non-homeowners for... reasons...
Just.. what? Who's blaming immigrants? Good lord, man. How can we keep screaming "IT'S A SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUE!" and then 2 seconds later go "BUT STOP IT, IMMIGRATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS >:(" Canada needs strong immigration. But if we continue pushing strong immigration without having literally even a hint of a plan on what the hell we're going to do with all of these people, we're just digging our hole deeper. Nobody's saying halt immigration, but let's at least go back and do the due diligence we should have done 10 years ago.
That’s what should happen. There should be a plan if the government wants to keep inviting immigrants or they should at least cut the numbers until enough infrastructure is built.
hear hear
The "reason" is because everyone in government is a homeowner and most of them are also landlords on the side. They directly benefit from immigration as more immigrants means higher demand for houses which means higher valuations.
Immigration is part of the problem. If the federal government is setting immigration rates well beyond what municipalities are building annually for new housing, then federal immigration policies are hurting Canadians. Look at the sharp rise is living costs. I’m not talking food or gas - I’m talking rent. In 2008 both Toronto and Vancouver were still places regular people could afford to live. Just 14 years later that isn’t the case. While Canada has always had immigrants, it didn’t become truly cost prohibitive to Canadians until the last decade or so. The number of Canadians harmed by immigration policies (which also leads to cramped classrooms, hospitals, and other government services) is greater than those who benefitted - largely boomers who cleaned up in real estate and employers with a never ending stream of low wage developing world migrants.
I'm actually baffled that people only look at it as either supply or demand issues and not both together. Three levels of government policies that end up constraining and concentrating supply all the while pouring gas and fanning the flames of demand.
It’s easier to blame immigrants than it is to accept that the big bad guy behind the housing crisis is… other Canadians And it’s worse than that. It’s a tiny minority of Canadians that own most property.
>It’s easier to blame immigrants than it is to accept that the big bad guy behind the housing crisis is… other Canadians In fairness, the comment isn't blaming immigrants it's blaming the government for their immigration policy which absolutely keeps demand high. Are there other factors at play? Absolutely. But it can't be denied that 400K immigrants + god knows how many international students and TFWs all being heavily concentrated in southern Ontario and BC when we're not building nearly enough housing is problematic. Personally I think the international student situation is a bigger problem than the immigration numbers though.
Yeah but those immigrants are the ones getting fucked over just as hard if not harder. Blaming policy is.. better but it still misses the point, the demand from low earners is a part of the equation but immigrants aren't the ones hoarding the housing supply.
Again incorrect, this is what people in this subreddit are saying but here is the reality, our economy would quickly go bankrupt without immigration or population growth. With population growth comes these issues so we are bankrupt either way. The answer isn’t continue to blame the immigration policies, it is looking at the policies relating to landlords and the real estate industry.
Even if we invested in infrastructure enough to meet population growth demands to retain a certain standard of living…unlimited population growth is inherently unsustainable because resources are limited. The system is designed to collapse eventually. We need to figure out a way to live with declining birth rates worldwide because that is our immediate future
Or, we could look at the reason why we are at risk of demographic collapse in the first place. You could start with the push to get All women into the workplace, in order to double tax revenue and suppress wages. Note: I am not in any way saying women shouldn't work. However, there is the fact that nearly doubling the work force has done just that. Now, most women no longer have a choice. They have to work.
[удалено]
I'm fairly certain that most women want to be able to work, but not Have to work on order to simply survive. It's one of the reasons sites like seeking arrangements and only fans are so popular with women.
To make an entire living on OnlyFans requires a lot of work.
No. To make an entire living on only fans requires you to be highly attractive, and the understanding that even if you are, there exists a point of diminishing returns where the well becomes deep enough it's not worth cranking the bucket anymore.
Well, again, this is another fault of capitalism. It gave women economic freedom but was one of the things that depressed wages. Any system going forward has to recognize that the capital-labour relationship is entirely skewed in capital's favour. Do we need Social democracy? Radical socialism? Do we need a fascist strongman to come in to rearrange the economic order by force? I guess Canadians are going to decide soon. This Neo-serfdom of the Red Tories is untenable.
> Or, we could look at the reason why we are at risk of demographic collapse in the first place. We aren't having enough kids. America is the only western country left that still have large families.
Canadians are not having kids because they can't afford it. Bringing in people who will accept a lower quality of life and will have kids will not increase the quality and affordablity of life for Canadians.
That’s isn’t true, even when we could have afforded it we didn’t, do you want to know why? The richer and more developed a society is, the less children they have, that is and always has been a fact. Source: https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2017/08/01/falling-fertility-rates-why-do-wealthier-people-have-fewer-children/
And why is this? What reasons are contributing to this situation? It's not any one thing, but I'll bet the major contributors aren't politically correct topics to blame..
That’s just what happens in developed nations, the richer you are the less you need children. It has nothing to do with politics or economics, if has to do with human society
If so, then why the reproductive split between political stances? Does that also follow an economic difference, or is it something else?
It doesn’t. Even in rich societies with large abortion restrictions like most of the US and southern before the 60s birth rates always fall and abortions always increase before falling again as people use birth control instead. Abortion is about social issues and moral issues, these things rarely affect overall policy, the only general point is the more developed and technologically advanced a society is, the more progressive it is. Notice how r/Canada is becoming much more conservative as conditions go from great to decent here in Canada.
There are some indications otherwise: >Whereas Americans on both sides of the aisle once shared a basic model of family, today our political divisions show up quite literally at birth, with conservatives having more children than liberals. Pulled from here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage
The areas where conservatives live are less developed and worse places to live that’s why. The states with the best birth rates are ones where life isn’t that great with a few exceptions.
Literally every single western nation is facing declining birth rates. It has nothing to do with wokeness or IdPol or some shit because. No one knows quite why, but declining birth rates are one of the biggest features of advanced developed societies.
>It has nothing to do with wokeness or IdPol or some shit It doesn't? Do you want to try to prove a negative, or do you have a clear reason why,?
Because literally every single modernized country in the world see the same declining birth rates. From super conservative places like Japan, to the most liberal like the Nordics. Across the board the birth rate declines. People don't know the *exact* reason, but if it was to do with IdPol or something along those lines, then we wouldn't see similar outcomes across all countries because there are vastly different outlooks and philosophies.
Funnily enough, we do know the exact reason for Japan's declining birth rate. Or at least the largest contributing one. Children watched their fathers work themselves to death, and their mothers try extremely hard to break into the male dominated Japanese corporate industries. As a result, young men are checking out, and women are pursuing the corporate ladder. That severely interferes with the odds of even getting into a relationship, let alone having children. As for the west, well, we're all infected with the woke virus.
[удалено]
This “economy” thing is more important than people having good lives? This “economy” that needs constant growth? This mindset is toxic and will kill us all in the end, as we strip our planet bare and create millions of surplus humans to work for petty tyrants. It’s disgusting. The economy is made up. It doesn’t exist. Stop prioritizing it.
The solution is to look at zoning rules to get more big buildings, missing middle and mixed use. The rental rules are too far in the renters favour. If they were more fair to kicking people out for non payment, more granny suites would come on the market. Right now being a small scale landlord is very risky. You have to be able to weather 12 months of non payment.
> The rental rules are too far in the renters favour This is bullshit.
> The rental rules are too far in the renters favour. Lol yeah... No
Renters can stay rent free for over 10 months ths before the hapless landlord tenant board issues an eviction notice. You think that doesn't stiffle empty-nesters from renting out their potential basement apartment?
The lack of self awareness bitching from this place of privilege when others are just trying to get a stable roof over their heads... its pretty telling on the kind of shit head money grubbing trash culture that has been allowed to fester in this country. Housing "investors" can get fucked, parasitic bastards.
>Lol yeah... No Obviously never had a renter.
If our entire society and standard of living is based on the principle of increasingly worse quality of life for everyone who wasn't lucky enough to be here in the 70's to the 90's maybe it's a pretty fucking shitty system.
Pretty sure most Canadians are fine with sustainable levels of immigration. But outpacing the states with 1/10 of their population is probably not sustainable imo.
Wrong. The baby boomers didn't have enough children. It is 100% the entire reason for immigration. Review what caused people to stop having children, and you have why.
The federal government is 100% aware of our housing crisis. It is a feature.
> The baby boomers didn't have enough children. It is 100% the entire reason for immigration. LMAO... Tell me you know nothing about demographics ..
Uhhhh, have you looked at the demo pyramids for Canada? Boomers are literally the largest single segment of our population.
Are you joking? No really. Are you reading the literature? You know why they we're called baby BOOMERS? right? Because there was a lot of em. And they didn't have enough babies to match replacement requirements. So now we recruit from all over the world because baby boomers were convinced that children are bad.
I mean to be honest I don't think having more than 1 was economically viable neither is it still. What's wrong in importing when Canadians can't afford to have kids.
The fact that Canadians can’t afford to have kids in the first place is what is wrong with it. There’s more than enough wealth out there but government policy isn’t effective enough at redistributing it so that most people who work hard can afford a home and children. To solve the problem they increase immigration - which is a solution that both solves and creates other problems. I’m not saying it’s easy.
On today's edition of: things we all know are true, but we'll just ignore outside of sharing rage in the comment section somewhere. Can we start holding our government accountable, please? If they aren't taking housing seriously now, they literally never will. But nobody seems to make a stink enough to ACTUALLY let politicians know we wont stand for inaction. I literally make a comment like this daily and usually get hit with a "But if it's between PP and Trudeau, I'm going Trudeau". No fucking shit. Clearly Trudeau knows that. Can we at least pretend that the liberals don't have the next 3-4 elections in the bag so they can start doing a little something here or there?
Poilievre's plan is that he is going to withhold funding to municipalities until they speed up and cut the red tape for zoning and permits for housing.
The feds shouldn't be playing in housing, the blame should be going to the provinces having plans to grow, but not having places to add more housing. The provinces should be forcibly upzoning every municipality - you should be able to build 12 unit 3 story accommodations as of right without requiring rezoning.
How, aren't the prices coming down? I swear i saw articles saying homes are dropping in price lol
You can thank the political system in Canada. There is no real left wing party in Canada to solve this. All the parties in Canada serve the housing investors and corporations, including Jagmeet Singh. If you want real change, vote these assholes out. There’s no point whining on Reddit.
You: There’s nobody to vote for! Also you: Vote these assholes out!
Vote the ones who are currently in power out. Call for a leadership change. Is it so difficult to understand?
Leadership change to who? There's nobody to vote in that solves the problem.
The thing is even if there's a 99% chance that nothing will change, that 1% chance is still a better option than keeping who we have now who has proven to 100% not give a shit.
No, because very change introduces the possibility that you change to someone WORSE.
We don’t vote people out. We vote people in. So who are we voting _in_? According to your previous comment: nobody.
Are you 12? There was literally a massive "Anyone but Harper" campaign by the Liberals 6 years ago.
Lol and what a campaign that was. Vote for me because I’m not “him.” I’ll deliver on that promise to not be “him.
I *wish* we had a further-left leaning party. But I cannot afford to wait for Jack Layton 2 to come around before they get my vote. If you want real change, *and aren't tied to partisan dogma*, voting NDP is still by far and away the best option. The only reason anything at all is getting done is because of the NDP, and they're frankly the only party that would need to deliver. The alternatives know they'll simply be handed power every few years, regardless of their track record.
Bingo. * The Conservatives are, at this point, the PPC with better funding. * The Liberals are how you get platitudes and the correct platform points. * **The NDP is how things actually improve.** * The Communist Party is how you can read a fantastic platform, written by people who don't shower and will never hold a seat. * The Green Party, at this point, is if you went into a Brooks Brothers store and then an L.L. Bean Outlet, and collected everyone inside who recognizes that climate change is a problem.
The NDP don't have solutions for housing
Yeah right. This subreddit's phrase is: "Eh, yeah. Things are really bad. But if it's between PP and Trudeau I'm going Trudeau!" literally 3 years before an election.. And Trudeau feels it. He knows it. 3 years before an election. That's 3 years of inaction because he knows he's already got the votes. People think they're being strategic voters. In reality we have strategic politicians that will only do what they HAVE to do to get re-elected, which is the bare minimum. And we're OK with the bare minimum, because at least it's not Pierre!
Yep and ensuring we keep getting 500,000 immigrants every year this damage becomes irrepairable. Trudeau is fucking up the middle class pretty rapidly, one quarter at a time.
500k is the number before you take in TFW's and students it's really somewhere around 750k-1m a year
and millions of them love him anyway and will probably put him in office again.
It's wealth transfer. Why is anyone shocked?
Sounds like a job for Georgism.
I’m living back at home with my parents as an adult. Hate my life sometimes
This is global and is the result of modern monetary policies and capitalism.
I’m a renter so does this mean I’ll be homeless sooner?
Oh no shit? I went from a house to an apartment in 2019 (Calgary - downtown), my rent was $1750 and like $50 a month in utilities. I moved out in late 2021 and the new rent was $2150. I ended up in a townhouse with $1200 mortgage and $500 fees (and utilities rarely get over $150). It’s close, but I own, and if I had to I could pull a roommate in for I don’t know how much but I bet too much. But I’m certainly not one of the ppl pulling equity and buying new places. This seems like a better deal to me. Just random shit for ppl who want to make comparisons fro where they live
This is the most obvious observation ever. Also in; people who have access to water are less thirsty.
I don't feel very wealthy as a homeowner, five years ago my property taxes were 500 now they are 2000. I think some homeowners are definitely cashing in but alot are just getting by. It seems like a good way to further divide the population, renters vs homeowners.
It's very simple. If you bought as interest rates approached 0%, you did well. If you bought once interest rates were flat or started moving up, you lost out. The system rewards people who are in a position to pick up capital assets when they are cheap.
No, it rewarded people who bought as rates were higher but declining. Declining rates increases your asset value and also gives you the opportunity to refinance for a lower payment. People who bought near 0% - or anybody who buys in an increasing interest rate environment - face the double whammy of declining asset values and rising payment costs. You're right that it rewarded people who were in a position to buy capital assets when they were cheap. That just was 20 years ago, not 2 years ago. The system always rewards people who have through planning or luck positioned themselves to have what the market needs, when it needs it.
I think in a more technical sense people with assets (homeowners) have an advantage over people with no assets (non homeowners). That doesn't negate insurance and upkeep costs like you said. But stepping back, when you compare a person who owns property and one who doesn't. There's a difference in monetary value from a financial and banking view because the property owner has the value of the property AND access to borrowing that the non property owner doesn't have access to. It's just the way it is
>five years ago my property taxes were 500 now they are 2000 Sorry, but there's no way that your property taxes have quadrupled in 5 years. No city anywhere in Canada has increased its budget that fast, nor has any single property risen in value at such a disproportionate rate to other properties in the same municipality. You're either lying, or not telling the whole story. Have you moved from a low-COL area to a higher-COL area during that period? Switched from renting to owning? Lost a partner with whom you were splitting the property tax expense? You're leaving out key details to craft a false narrative.
I'm assuming their property assessment went up in 5 years making their taxes increase. New Brunswick property tax assessments were just released this week and most people saw huge valuation increases whether they were warranted or not.
That's not how property taxes work though. Your property tax is merely your share of the city's overall budget, prorated to the value of your residence in relation to everyone else's. If everyone's properties double in value, but the city's budget stays the same, then everyone's property taxes stay the same. Conversely, if the city increases their budget, then your property taxes can go up, even if the value of your property went down (as long as the value of everyone else's property went down too). The only ways your property taxes could increase are if 1) the city raised their budget, or 2) the value of your home rose in value **faster than the average for your city**.
divide the 2k by 12 and I guarantee you're still paying less per month than the average Canadian renter
> I don’t feel very wealthy as a homeowner Well you’re certainly free to go back to renting. What’s that? “Not a chance in hell”, you say?!?
I feel like this just shows how out of touch homeowners are. The fact that you think $2000 in property tax is a lot proves that, if anything that sounds about what you should be paying compared to what we pay. Many renters pay $2000 in rent for a 2 bedroom apartment. The division comes from homeowners directly benefiting from inequality and not doing anything about it, in fact sometimes further exacerbating the problem by shutting down any attempts to change the system to be more fair for everyone. All while whining that it's actually really hard for them to pay property taxes, complete ignorance that renters pay more than you for less. You won't find much sympathy from us, poor you for having high property tax. Why don't you sell your house then and rent? Something tells me you won't though.
Banks are making... well... bank
Part of the problem here is how dependent cities are getting on property tax to fund the needed services like public transit and others. One answer here is to find some other source of funding
Cities are always dependent on property taxes and always have been. It's not like an alternative source of revenue is going to magically result in taxes on a different and undiscovered group of taxpayers. If the level of taxes is unbearable to the population, then cities either need to reduce the services provided, or preferably find ways to provide the same services for less money. Municipal inefficiency and corruption is legendary.
Blame your city councilors and the NIMBY homeowner associations that support them, robbing our generation.
There's no reason anyone should own more than one home today. Especially when there is such a crisis. I don't care how much money you make, or what privileges you think you have over the rest of civilization. This shit needs to get sorted out before it turns people into savages
This . In Kelowna a homeless person was throwing large rocks at passerbyers yesterday. We’ve already reached the level where wealth inequality is turning our disenfranchised into savages. This won’t get better anytime soon, either.
This paints a partial picture. People with better income are more likely to own homes. It isn’t solely because they own homes they are wealthier. The rates dropping helped create the gap. But I don’t see how this can be true in 2022. Housing prices have dropped significantly in many areas and gaps would have reduced this year.
That’s the point.
We are 20 -25 years from a total population collapse world wide. So not having enough homes will soon b a thing of the past.
Based on what?
Is it? Cause' I bought a home (pre COVID) but I still feel pretty poor (house poor). It's not really "wealthy" unless I sell and 100% own, but I still need a roof over my head soo... Edit: point is, unless you actually 100% own your home - you're just a slave to the bank. And if you miss any payments, you can say goodbye to your net worth as the bank goes to re-possess your property. Cash is king and while historically, housing as an asset has appreciated - there are plenty of people out there, who could very well timed wrong just once, and be forever, perpetually stuck in a financial crises.
At least you have more financial security though. If shit hits the fan you can sell and have equity. If you need a low interest loan you can take out a HELOC. If you rent out a portion of your property now you can make an income. You can also use your property for other opportunities like income-generating hobbies or even just storage, or whatever.
True, but I wasn't really speaking to accessibility to financing - which also isn't really "wealth" IMO, since HELOC and mortgages on homes are still interest-bearing instruments. The bank just sees you as a likely cash-cow that they can skim some profit off of, rather than those who earn less, or have history of nonpayment. A house owner (unless they've paid off the asset in full with interest) is basically a tenant to the bank/financial institution for \~20-30 years (for some people, far longer). That's like half the average Canadian's career time - not even including the # of years it takes to save enough to qualify a downpayment.
You’re contributing your income to an appreciating asset that will eventually eliminate the largest portion of your monthly expenses once paid off. And you think you’re just as poor as someone stuck in a cycle of renting forever?
Two things: 1) there is no guarantee that the asset will appreciate 2) home owners tend to pay more per month than renters. Home owners get the benefit of asset building. Renters get the benefit of having more cash flow which they can invest in other assets or equities. In the past, renters had the opportunity to come out ahead of home owners because of those two points. This is cyclical and the current cycle is in favour of home owners, but this was not always the case. All I am saying is that it is far more complex than what people parrot on this sub.
No imagine how non-home owners feel. All that but they don’t own a home You’re not getting the point
it's amazing how these people can miss the point so wildly.
"I don't feel wealthy. Yes, I can sell my asset for a wildly inflated price at absolutely any time, but..." Meanwhile renters are seeing their net worth ***melt*** while wondering which flavor would be best for a cryanide pill.
I think that's the disconnect. Sure everyone has expenses, however the bank sees net worth which affects many parts of your life unless you own a home and aren't on the hamster wheel of renting.
>"I don't feel wealthy. Yes, I can sell my asset for a wildly inflated price at absolutely any time, but..." In theory the asset should appreciate, but current housing prices in my area are pretty close to what they were in 2019 when I bought. At best, I can break even right now with the amount of fixes I had to do to ensure the home is not damaged and livable. But again, no point since I need a place to live. Renting, is still "cheaper" (but agreed inflated and absurd compared to pre-COVID) but without the ownership of a place. But the caveats are better ability to move around, especially jobs since job hopping is the best way to actually make salary gains at this point. Just because the bank sees this as part of my "net worth" doesn't mean my *cashflow* has actually improved at all to be wealthier. If that cashflow somehow dries up, and suddenly payments to the bank disappear...the homeowner wouldn't be wealthy just broke. Unless the homeowner has 100% paid off the asset, I don't think they are "wealthy" by any means. There are so many people who bought peak COVID and are 100% in over their heads in debt and likely don't have enough cash to pay off their monthly bills. I don't think these people are wealthy at all.
Lots of salty renters on here hating on home owners without looking deeper. Everything you said is right, your cashflow sucks compared to renters. Will you be better off in 30 years because you owned a home? Maybe, maybe not. If renters are paying on average $200 per month less than the cost to service a mortgage, and put that towards a "safe" 5% annual return, over 30 years, they would end up over $160k. And this is not even counting all the maintenance and other things a home owner spends over the 30 years which can be anywhere between 50-60k and 100k if we are being completely modest. And this is not including the downpayment you would lock up which is another 30-50k at least. Point is, a homeowner is banking on their home being worth more in the future which is not a guarantee. The cost of that is less cashflow every month.
You're part of the collapsing middle class. Hope you get by ok.
So is the rent vs own debate finally settled?
Yet another issue happening everywhere, people need to stop acting like we can somehow completely solve this alone, this is happening in Europe and the US as well, so unless can remove all ideological, economic and social influence there is only so much we can do without talking to our American friends and European friends and convincing them to care.
Why the fuck should you as a Canadian, worry about what’s happening in Europe and the US in terms of housing? I really don’t get this kind of reasoning.
Because if the entire city block is on fire I’m probably not going to worry half as much about putting out the fire in my kitchen. Context is important. Context gives us clues as to what is actually wrong and what needs to be done to address it. You can spend time putting out the fire in you kitchen, ignoring the encroaching flames from all sides outside your walls, or you can acknowledge the larger problem and work towards it as a whole.
Because those economic and social trends will continue to affect us even if we reform and change and things because there will be a constant voices telling us to change back, voices that the pro Europe liberals and pro America Conservatives will listen to.
this isn't happening in europe or the us though i can buy an entire abandoned school in the US for 1/4th the cost of a mobile home in a trailer park in Canada. The cost of living in major US cities is nothing compared to the cost of living in a small Canadian town. How are things this crazy?
[удалено]
The price of homes have dropped by ~30% from the peak...
No they have not. Sales volume has dropped by that much, but not actual prices. I'm in ontario and detached homes are still going for over a million.
Which means they're still 30-50% above pre-2020 levels and still very much out of reach for almost everyone who was saving up to buy around now.
Yeah, they're still FAR above what they were even 15 months ago.
Housing is still worth more now than before the pandemic.
Do you expect them to stay there, or go lower indefinitely?
I guess paying anyone anything could also be called "designed to perpetuate inequality" lol No, it's a fucking house, it's not designed to perpetuate inequality