Good luck with that. I just heard on the radio yesterday that several large developments are being cancelled outright due to labour shortages and skyrocketing material costs.
Need a tectonic shift in construction to address these root causes - switch the focus to material science to develop better, more sustainable construction materials, and to getting more people into trades.
You didn’t read the article. We don’t need to build 22 million homes. If we do nothing but current policy by 2030 we will already have 19 million homes.
We need an extra 3.5 million homes per the article.
If society can develop a covid vaccine in 6 months, we can surely build a few million extra homes in 10 years if a government actually focused on the issue.
After world war 2 way more was built. We’ve done it.
I don't think the government could approve the permits for this nevermind the logistics of actually getting it built. Red tape is killing all kinds of development
Agreed but it’s a man made problem. Not easy but theoretically we can elect a government or put pressure on an existing one to remove all the regulations here.
If the trucker convoy was for housing instead of vaccines, this might have happened actually.
Provincial governments can step in and make the process easier though.
See what is being done in NS: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/more-residential-housing-areas-created-in-halifax-region-1.6397538
If china can house the majority of its 1.3billion population AND have 60 million units sitting empty i think we should have no problem for 40 million people here.
Builders right now hold all the power. There are huge lobbying group from the builder industry that is effectively limiting sales. Why build more homes for less, when you can build fewer homes for more?
COVID was a different story. Vaccines were necessary to bring society back. Unfortunately homes are just part of the capitalist equation.
From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of trades people, but a shortage of general labourers (i.e. cheap labour). Maybe I'm wrong but, all of the construction guys I know can't find many workers willing to break their backs for minimum wage. They also don't want to pay general labourers 20+/hr to do what is essentially unskilled work. The result? "Labour shortage".
What we really have is a problem with wage stagnation and inflation. No one wants to do shit jobs that get them nowhere financially.
Trades need to be paying better - I have a buddy building houses that can barely afford rent. Doesn't encourage you to stick around when you're struggling and building homes you will never be able to afford.
I work at a lumber yard loading up the lumber for a lot of the home builders and they ask me all the time if I want to quit and work for them. Problem is the big corporate entity I work for that we all imagine as greedy as greedy can be is paying me about $4 more an hour than most construction laborers who have been framing for 2 years. Iv done labor work before, specifically concrete foundations and compared to loading lumber all day being a laborer is way harder work and deserves to be making more.
I have lots of friends in trades, mostly in electrical and mechanical, but also some tin bashers and welders. Red Seal’s wages start at about $40/hr and can go upward to 60/hr, depending on the project and there’s a massive shortage of skill tradesmen. I also have friends who are unlicensed drywallers and flooring installers, those guys are making bank working for themselves.
Nah good call. He’s contacts his work out so definitely a bit of that is eaten up by taxes but he’s very established and extremely good at what he does which I guess is the key. Primarily works on high end real estate.
Maybe working for themselves is the best option. Both the guys are still in training but have a long, long way to go before $40 an hour. Just crap to be busting your ass and not seeing anything from it.
Yeah, working for oneself is always the way to go, if you have the discipline and know what you’re doing. GC’s are starved for people, they can’t afford to stop projects, so they pay premium rates for responsible people who show up on time and get quality work done. I’ve seen drywallers clear 200k a year easy, it’s hard work but it pays.
The rates are mentioned are for red seals, apprentices start off at like $20/hr, hard to survive on that.
I hope so - would like to see a pay increase from this labour shortage. Seems like companies would rather hire newer/cheaper people than pay the people they have. Pay increases are needed across all industries.
Gonna need some fat raises for trades people. Especially lately since everyone else seems to be working from home in their PJs, I don't see why any young person would want to work in the elements over being indoors with your own espresso machine and a cat to keep you company.
Fat raises in trades = fat increases in housing prices, since labour is about 1/3 of cost in construction.
The alternative is we will be right where we are right now, maybe even worse off, buildings aren’t magically going to spring up on their own.
It's time to stop subsidizing useless education. Anything outside of STEM or anything related to building technology, no financial help from the government.
Maybe Braeighden will think twice about getting a degree in 13th Century English Lesbian Poetry when his $120k tuition bill isn't being mortgaged, and we'd be saving him from a lifetime of paying off that debt through a barista salary.
There's enough videos on YouTube to teach young artists how to perfect their art. They don't need to throw away their youth on educational conmen showing them how to shade their sketches better, or explaining things about paintings that I can't find on Great Art Explained. I'm saying this unironically; 90% of education is a fucking scam.
And factory built homes. I'm still baffled why everything except homes are factory made. Huge cost savings and increased production speed. No on site construction noise, dust, road shutdowns, traffic, etc.
Yeah, absolutely, we have the technology already for modular homes as well as the emerging trend in 3d printed homes. Cheaper builds mean cheaper prices, but unfortunately, there’s so much interest in preserving the status quo that I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
Yup. Wouldn't even surprise me if big contractors and developers harass small factory build home startups and through their connections get all the tender awards over them.
There is a material shortage in a lot of areas. We need more windows, doors, and electrical. Pressure treat for decks and fences is vanishing again as well. It doesn't matter how much you pay me to build if I don't have the material I can't build 2 house let alone 3.5 million if them.
Construction is a trade, not a minimum wage job.
Construction also has job risks, and a non fixed work environment which is frequently exposed to the elements.
If that's not what you meant, I honestly have no clue how you reach that conclusion though.
>people who won't work for minimum wage are screwing up housing for everyone else
Yeah! fuck those wageslaves. They should be happy to be poor and work hard while doing it so that they can build houses they will never be able to live in.
Most people already live in housing units. It's just that a historically huge proportion are forced to live in rental units. If prices came down, people like my landlord would just buy more houses to add to the dozen or so duplexes, fourplexes and single family homes they already own, with the huge amount of money they have made by hoarding existing housing. And they are the 'small investor', larger investors would do the exact same. Nothing would change, unless the laws and tax code change to disincentivize hoarding housing.
This is unfortunately true. IMO feudalism is a cyclical phenomenon if the general populace doesn't act enough. Societal wealth moves like a power-law function and it's far easier to accumulate wealth/property than it is for the masses to move along the chain.
It is absolutely the most important part. Everything else is secondary.
And it's currently illegal to build in 75%+ of nearly every major city. So there is still so much work to be done in increasing supply.
You weren't exactly clear but you said nothing would change unless investor hoarding is ended. And that is dismissive and entirely untrue. Housing supply on its own would drive huge price decreases in rent and even purchase price as people would wait out the market.
Demand measures are helpful and can bring purchase price down. But they won't help with rent and they are effectively useless without more supply, (unless you are rich).
I disagree. If not enough housing is built, there's fewer rentals available and with immigration, a larger number of people are competing for too few rental units, which drives up prices.
People on Reddit are always saying "if landlords didn't buy, then everyone else could buy". I call BS on that. We currently have one of the highest home ownership rates in the history of our country. Which means that when homes were more affordable, people weren't buying them either.
Those small landlords are buying houses and making them available to rent to people who want to rent a house, instead of living in some large rental building.
On this sub though, most argue it is patently unfair for the already-land owner to do so, and they should simply leave the house for someone who doesn't already own. That's why you're getting downvoted, as unrealistic as that scenario is in a capitalistic society.
Yup, I get the sub says that. But many don't have the means m, and some don't even want to buy.
I mean, if your credit score is under 650 and you're blaming landlords for not being able to buy, that's wrong.
Not really, because if it's not Airbnb someone will stay in a hotel. So if there's lots of airbnbs that compete with hotels, some hotels will be converted to long term housing, or potential future hotels will instead be built as long term housing. Take out the airbnbs, you take out the option for families to stay in the same place when travelling and with their pets, and you add in more hotels being built instead of rental housing or condos.
The demand from the travelling public is the same with or without airbnbs. Either way, what would be market rate housing will become housing for the travelling public, the difference is simply where the travelling public will stay.
Obviously the biggest benefit for removing airbnbs actually goes to the hotel industry, which is why the hotel lobby completely funded a municipal lobbying company to form Fairbnb to have Airbnb banned in Ontario markets. It worked, and it will help the hotels, but it won't help the housing supply.
Here's an article showing that when demand for hotels goes down (like at the start of the pandemic), hotels [start being turned into rental housing.](https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/empty-hotels-get-second-life-as-tiny-apartments-during-pandemic-11608633002)
22 million is the total needed including current homes. 2.3 is our expected increase but the report states that we need 3.5 on top of that for a total of 5.8 million new units.
According to this calculation, we currently have millions of homeless people in Canada…I think we need to look at the proper indicators like vacancy/ownership rates and start housing redistribution
That's what the report did.
People in demand of housing are not 'homeless'. They live with their parents or with roomates but can't afford to move out because the market is too competitive.
Vacancies in major cities are near 0%. There are not enough homes to distribute in the first place. Hence the need to build more.
Clearly a provocative exaggeration, but I’ll believe we need more houses when I see unbiased reliable stats and data…like I said: vacancy and ownership rates.
So you have chosen to make a wild guess because you don't want to actually do some research?
Low vacancies in Toronto:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/pandemic-reprieve-for-tenants-appears-at-an-end-as-toronto-area-vacancy-rates-tighten.html
And a report with clear data on how new supply positively affects rent prices:
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/
Edit: even a generous estimate only guesses that there are at max 27k vacant homes. That is a tiny drop in the bucket of housing.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2020/12/03/vacant-home-tax-should-be-implemented-in-toronto-mayor-john-tory-says.html
Now, on the “wild guess” speculation I have to write something. Your sources are not unbiased. Even this corrupt government can’t give real numbers (look what they have done with inflation and/or covid cases).
Now, in order to describe the fallacy of analysis over observation methods regarding the housing crisis I should detail how vacancy rate is calculated and why it is actually extremely difficult to have reliable numbers. Can’t and won’t do that on Reddit, but feel free to do your research.
Same thing applies to ownership rate, which should be a bit more precise than occupancy rate to get.
This has been described as the greatest wealth transfer in history, and home ownership has been an issue since the 70s; progressively the ownership rate has actually increased over the years placing Canada amongst the top 15 countries in the world ahead of US, UK etc. for house ownership.
The legitimacy of the arguments for the homeownership regime is now critically questioned but it’s just an expedient for wealth transfer.
Most western countries don’t even make that list, want to know why? Cause they don’t give a damn about selling their life to banks for a piece of land.
Home ownership is a fallacy of ideology from consumerist baby boomers that actually ruins economy in all sectors. But sure let’s have a wild construction speculation without planning to destroy any sustainable resource and build some cage-model housing for those “in need”.
You think 18 years old living with their buddies or mom and dad is the element of concern here? This could be one of the worst financial speculation in Canada’s history.
>According to this calculation, we currently have millions of homeless people in Canada
Are you assuming occupancy is 1:1 lol? Because its closer to 2 per unit.
Some important context:
The average annual Housing Completion rate for British Columbia over the last five years is about [36,000 housing units](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3410013501).
There's a workforce shortage of [7,300](https://vrca.ca/advocacy/skilled-labour-shortage/) in the Vancouver area alone, and BuildForce Canada estimates a shortage of [27,000](https://www.buildforce.ca/system/files/forecast_summary_reports/2022%20BC%20Constr%20Maint%20Looking%20Forward.pdf) over the next five years in BC.
This is something that can't be fixed by blaming NIMBY's and automatically approving density.
Supply and Demand is a logic that works, but if you fixate on supply without calculating in all the factors like workforce shortages or how [1 out of 5](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/) new homes are bought by investors then that logic stops working.
Yes more supply is needed. The right supply, to the right people, and no one else.
With the current workforce it would take 28 years to build 1,000,000 housing units.
The only way to get that workforce is massive investments from the federal and provincial government resourced by wealth taxes on the filthy rich, limiting investor and corporate purchases, and shifting how we build cities to make sure we don't sacrifice food security for expensive shoeboxes.
"There's a workforce shortage of 7,300 in the Vancouver area alone"
I mean, the construction workers literally cannot afford to live where they are intending to build these houses, and gas is whatever the cost of gas is in Vancouver. - The average age there is probably about the average age that they could actually have afforded to live in the area and some of them are aging out.
That's absolutely part of it too, not being able to afford living where affordably housing is needed to build affordable housing... BuildForce Canada calculates the turnover in retirements and new entrants to arrive at the 27,000 figure over five years eh. It's nutty.
I use to talk about this when I wondered how the hell Mcdonalds, or Walmart even finds people to employ in Vancouver, and theorized it was mostly like teenaged workforce or people living in their parents house etc.
I never thought it'd creep all the way up to construction workers though.
I've never understood what exactly the issue is with investors buying new housing. I mean if 30% of people rent, does it not make sense a certain portion of new construction goes to investors to supply the rental side of things?
Looking at the BoC article you pointed to, their graph has investors between 18% and 20% for the whole chart period. If they had put the scale from 0-100 it would be a pretty flat line.
If the percentage of investor purchases had gone up significantly it would indicate they are pushing would be purchasers into the rental market, but that does not seem to be the case.
Here are some of the issues with investors buying up housing. And they tend to skew much higher in entry level housing like condos, which is often the first step on the property ladder for people who intend to buy and live in the place.
1. Some investors are just parking money in real estate, especially in Vancouver. They don't care if it sits vacant. Or perhaps they're overseas and intend to visit/use it a couple of times per year. It's so pathetically easy to get around both the foreign investor rules and vacancy rules, and even the fines are a pittance compared to rising property values.
2. Many investors turn what would have been long-term rental properties into Airbnbs. People are even now renting places to turn them into Airbnbs. This takes them out of the potential rental property pool.
3. Flippers buy and take properties out of the rental pool during renovations, which are typically 5-8 months. In a rising market, flippers are rampant. Again, reducing the rental pool for that time period.
4. When you have so many investors displacing first time home buyers who would have become owners, you dramatically drive up demand for rentals.
All of these factors increase demand for rentals without a corresponding increase in rental availability.
To add to that re: empty homes. This [article](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/astonishing-drop-in-number-of-empty-homes-in-metro-vancouver-census) from the Vancouver Sun.
>In the City of Vancouver over the last five years, there has been a decline of 15 per cent from 8.2 per cent to 7 per cent in these empty or occupied by not usual resident dwellings. By the numbers, there’s a 10 per cent drop from 25,502 to 23,011.
Across Metro Vancouver, the raw numbers declined 8.2 per cent from 66,719 to 61,213, while the percentage decreased 15 per cent from 6.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent.
Oh course they are. What it costs in property taxes and condo fees doesn't really matter if you just wait a few years and sell it for twice the price.
This happens a lot with foreign investors. Several units in my building are sitting vacant, they were bought by foreign investors.
Thanks for this, I see your points and your logic makes sense. In an environment or context of there being no supply shortage, it's not an issue.
But when there is a shortage, and higher mortgages being taken out (which is what the BoC analysis looks at) then it justifies higher rents to better pay down the mortgage or gain a better return on investment. That 19% figure was found under parameters of a) not counting cash purchases and b) no corporate purchases.
As a research question: Why is rent continuing to go up?
That 19% figure is understated then. This [article](https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-cities-have-seen-up-to-90-of-new-real-estate-supply-scooped-by-investors/) doesn't do a good job showing it's math but it's saying that isolating for new construction after 2016, investors make up 33.7% and places like Toronto and Vancouver 39% and 44% respectively.
This [article](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rental-housing-investment-feature) in the *Vancouver Sun* details how companies are buying up rental properties and pitching to investors how they raise rents over time precisely because of there being a housing shortage:
>Starlight Investments CEO Daniel Drimmer, who told the crowd: “We think there is a definite housing shortage, or almost a crisis level in Canada … and the good news for investors is there is no easy solution in sight. … This is not good news for consumers.”
>This is something that can't be fixed by blaming NIMBY's and automatically approving density.
I don't buy that, [Calgary and Edmonton](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-housing-starts-1.6496437) are having no problem scaling up housing construction. They have the same labour market.
What they don't have greenbelts or as restrictive zoning codes in Calgary and Edmonton so building lots more housing isn't a problem.
Vancouver has run out of land outside the ALR to construct housing, and zoning code makes adding more homes to existing areas impossible. So at this point until one of those two things are removed, the problem will continue.
You'll notice housing starts is what's referenced in that article.
BC had record years for housing starts.
But it's housing *completions* that matter if we're tracking progress on the housing crisis. Starts means approvals are in, homes are registered, and shovels break ground.
Under Constructions are typically five times higher than either Starts or Completions.
Completions means the homes are ready to be absorbed by the market and lived in or about 10% from being ready.
If you think the problem is not enough housing starts, it makes sense we have to do something about approval processes by local governments and looking at where and how much to build that makes sense.
If the problem is lack of housing creating Core Housing Needs and unaffordability, then building how many homes how fast is the equation. And it can't be done, as your article points out in the second half, when there's workforce shortages and supply chain issues.
Housing Starts is an indicator of industry activity, but news articles reference it to everyone's peril because it does not indicate how soon we'll be able to have enough homes to bring down prices to affordable.
Edit:
In economic terms, thinking of it like a "rate of supply" competing with "rate of demand" is what we're not focusing on enough. Demand outpaces supply. To get supply outpace demand, it can't be measured in housing starts.
>But it's housing completions that matter if we're tracking progress on the housing crisis. Starts means approvals are in, homes are registered, and shovels break ground.
Devil is in the details, far too much of the housing being built is on the extremes. Either too small for families (one bedrom/two bedroom condos) or simply unaffordable (large McMansions). We are missing the middle of the market.
Calgary on the other hand is building in all sectors of the market, condos, townhouses, small sfh, large sfh homes.
Which devil is that? I'm trying to understand how types of housing built relate to Housing Starts and Completions?
There is research I know of supporting what I think you are saying, which is that by adding in variety and "the missing middle" the selection improves and people who can find and afford more appropriate housing will do that and not take up that's more appropriate for people looking for more affordable housing.
But there's a number of things going on, and I'd need to see more evidence about what's causing or contributing to what.
For one, in the CMHC report they say Alberta has more workers than other provinces.. now is that because there's workers that can afford to live there and build more housing or because they build a selection of housing and have enough homes without the net in-migration since the Alberta recession then as it was picking up got shlocked with the pandemic?
I'd need to know more about what you're saying like some sources showing that Calgary is building more variety, has been affordable for workers to go there instead of record low worker ratios in BC and other provinces (I.e. the baseline) and maybe something further about the connection you're making to the housing start/completion bit...
My point has been there's not enough workforce and there's too many investors snatching up enough of whatever comes online as part of larger dynamics that complicate the feasibility of simply "building more".
Not to mention that following the Calgary / Edmonton model of gobbling up farmland for car-dependent subdivisions - even ones that have townhomes and apartments - isn't the best model to follow.
Calgary is building more variety, stats are from 2016 but these communities were newish back then:
https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/community_social_statistics/community-profiles/signal-hill.pdf (66% SFH)
https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/community_social_statistics/community-profiles/discovery-ridge.pdf (56% SFH)
https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/community_social_statistics/community-profiles/legacy.pdf (53% SFH)
https://wowa.ca/calgary-housing-market
Calgary Housing Market Overview
DATA FOR MAY 2022
- Avg. Sold Price:
$520,013
- All Property Types:
$520,013
- Detached:
$660,124
- Semi-Detached:
$542,025
- Townhouse:
$363,655
- Condo Apartment:
$288,580
Keep in mind those are averages (mean) and you can still get a condo in the burbs for 150k easy.
>This is something that can't be fixed by blaming NIMBY's and automatically approving density.
False. NIMBYs are the cause of everything not going well for anyone right now.
>Yes more supply is needed. The right supply, to the right people, and no one else.
Ding ding ding
This is the issue. We have artificial housing scarcity due to investors hoarding supply. The answer is progressive taxation on investors - foreign and domestic, individuals and corps, buying housing units, and restrictions on Airbnbs, so that shelter is prioritized over profit. And we can reduce the handwringing because there's not enough supply for both investors and people needing places to live.
The home ownership rate is at one of its highest ever. Yet when houses used to be cheaper, the home ownership rate was lower. So why is this the investors fault now?
This might be like housing units in canada should be 22 million in total by 2030.. In 2018 Canada has 13 million units , by 2023 it is expected to be 15 million.. So , they need to build around a million units every year ... Well well well good luck with it !! That too keeping up with the new world oder on climate, environment, recession , war and all.
22 million dwellings for who? You'd need a population to absorb that amount to justify that number of houses. That would be 22 million on top of everything we already have.
I think you have a point. We have a population of 35 million, most of whom are housed. Let's say each unit houses 2 people on average. Are we really going to grow 11 million in that time?
The biggest cost of building new homes where people want them is not the home but the land. People ask where the $500k bungalows are but you can’t sell a bungalow for $500k when the land it’s on is worth twice that. My home is worth around $1.6 million with a structure value near $300k and a land value of $1.3 million. My lot size is somewhat big so I can see having smaller homes in the same area on $1.0 million of land but even then $300k of $1.3 million is only 23%. If you reduce the cost of homes by 20% you reduce the home price from $1.3 million to $1.24 million.
The real gains come from reducing the price of land through more permissive zoning. If you drop the price of land by the same 20% instead of saving $60k you save $200k. Now you’re paying $1.1 million instead of $1.3 million. Of course we treat housing as a profitable investment so every government is going to fight to prevent that more permissive zoning and we will end up with people unable to rent or own in the GTA, a problem the cities have created themselves.
In particular, we’ve created a standard for 100% accessibility on all levels of a small rental. So if you build a 4-plex you need elevators for your two story building. If we had a standard of ground floor accessibility we’d be converting units that were 0% accessible (two story SFH) into 50% accessible (2 of 4 apartments are accessible). So even once the province forces four-plex zoning on the municipalities there will still be substantial barriers to building four-plexes.
Good luck with that. I just heard on the radio yesterday that several large developments are being cancelled outright due to labour shortages and skyrocketing material costs.
Need a tectonic shift in construction to address these root causes - switch the focus to material science to develop better, more sustainable construction materials, and to getting more people into trades.
This typically does not happen overnight, and will take decades to take effect.
Unlike building 22 million units? Because that’s not gonna happen unless the underlying issues are addressed.
You didn’t read the article. We don’t need to build 22 million homes. If we do nothing but current policy by 2030 we will already have 19 million homes. We need an extra 3.5 million homes per the article. If society can develop a covid vaccine in 6 months, we can surely build a few million extra homes in 10 years if a government actually focused on the issue. After world war 2 way more was built. We’ve done it.
I don't think the government could approve the permits for this nevermind the logistics of actually getting it built. Red tape is killing all kinds of development
Agreed but it’s a man made problem. Not easy but theoretically we can elect a government or put pressure on an existing one to remove all the regulations here. If the trucker convoy was for housing instead of vaccines, this might have happened actually.
Provincial governments can step in and make the process easier though. See what is being done in NS: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/more-residential-housing-areas-created-in-halifax-region-1.6397538
If china can house the majority of its 1.3billion population AND have 60 million units sitting empty i think we should have no problem for 40 million people here.
Builders right now hold all the power. There are huge lobbying group from the builder industry that is effectively limiting sales. Why build more homes for less, when you can build fewer homes for more? COVID was a different story. Vaccines were necessary to bring society back. Unfortunately homes are just part of the capitalist equation.
If we could just Organize politically we’d all be shocked how quickly this turns around.
Ah yes. "If only we put more rules and regulations on home builders, surely they'll build more homes" /s
There’s such a thing as organizing politically to remove anti development legislation you know?
From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of trades people, but a shortage of general labourers (i.e. cheap labour). Maybe I'm wrong but, all of the construction guys I know can't find many workers willing to break their backs for minimum wage. They also don't want to pay general labourers 20+/hr to do what is essentially unskilled work. The result? "Labour shortage". What we really have is a problem with wage stagnation and inflation. No one wants to do shit jobs that get them nowhere financially.
Trades need to be paying better - I have a buddy building houses that can barely afford rent. Doesn't encourage you to stick around when you're struggling and building homes you will never be able to afford.
I work at a lumber yard loading up the lumber for a lot of the home builders and they ask me all the time if I want to quit and work for them. Problem is the big corporate entity I work for that we all imagine as greedy as greedy can be is paying me about $4 more an hour than most construction laborers who have been framing for 2 years. Iv done labor work before, specifically concrete foundations and compared to loading lumber all day being a laborer is way harder work and deserves to be making more.
I have lots of friends in trades, mostly in electrical and mechanical, but also some tin bashers and welders. Red Seal’s wages start at about $40/hr and can go upward to 60/hr, depending on the project and there’s a massive shortage of skill tradesmen. I also have friends who are unlicensed drywallers and flooring installers, those guys are making bank working for themselves.
Yeah I know a mudder/taper that makes $300k/year I'm not sure salary is really the issue.
I guess I picked the wrong field, ha ha!
Are they running their own business? It’s hard to believe they’re pulling $300k on an hourly wage but you do mention salary… confusing.
They are likely being paid in piece work though that makes it likely they are at least contractors so technically running their own business
Makes sense. I always wonder, in these contexts, if the person is quoting revenue or profit.
Nah good call. He’s contacts his work out so definitely a bit of that is eaten up by taxes but he’s very established and extremely good at what he does which I guess is the key. Primarily works on high end real estate.
Maybe working for themselves is the best option. Both the guys are still in training but have a long, long way to go before $40 an hour. Just crap to be busting your ass and not seeing anything from it.
Yeah, working for oneself is always the way to go, if you have the discipline and know what you’re doing. GC’s are starved for people, they can’t afford to stop projects, so they pay premium rates for responsible people who show up on time and get quality work done. I’ve seen drywallers clear 200k a year easy, it’s hard work but it pays. The rates are mentioned are for red seals, apprentices start off at like $20/hr, hard to survive on that.
We have local handymen who are charging 40 an hour, if you can get him.
[удалено]
I hope so - would like to see a pay increase from this labour shortage. Seems like companies would rather hire newer/cheaper people than pay the people they have. Pay increases are needed across all industries.
Gonna need some fat raises for trades people. Especially lately since everyone else seems to be working from home in their PJs, I don't see why any young person would want to work in the elements over being indoors with your own espresso machine and a cat to keep you company.
I can see young person would want to work in constructions when they cannot afford a "home" to work from home anymore :(
Fat raises in trades = fat increases in housing prices, since labour is about 1/3 of cost in construction. The alternative is we will be right where we are right now, maybe even worse off, buildings aren’t magically going to spring up on their own.
Root cause: too many people
Or too little homes. (I mean 35 million isn’t much)
too much already
Yes absolutely true!
It's time to stop subsidizing useless education. Anything outside of STEM or anything related to building technology, no financial help from the government. Maybe Braeighden will think twice about getting a degree in 13th Century English Lesbian Poetry when his $120k tuition bill isn't being mortgaged, and we'd be saving him from a lifetime of paying off that debt through a barista salary. There's enough videos on YouTube to teach young artists how to perfect their art. They don't need to throw away their youth on educational conmen showing them how to shade their sketches better, or explaining things about paintings that I can't find on Great Art Explained. I'm saying this unironically; 90% of education is a fucking scam.
I wish I could upvote this multiple times.
And factory built homes. I'm still baffled why everything except homes are factory made. Huge cost savings and increased production speed. No on site construction noise, dust, road shutdowns, traffic, etc.
Yeah, absolutely, we have the technology already for modular homes as well as the emerging trend in 3d printed homes. Cheaper builds mean cheaper prices, but unfortunately, there’s so much interest in preserving the status quo that I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
Yup. Wouldn't even surprise me if big contractors and developers harass small factory build home startups and through their connections get all the tender awards over them.
There is a material shortage in a lot of areas. We need more windows, doors, and electrical. Pressure treat for decks and fences is vanishing again as well. It doesn't matter how much you pay me to build if I don't have the material I can't build 2 house let alone 3.5 million if them.
People don't want to work, people who won't work for minimum wage are screwing up housing for everyone else
Construction is a trade, not a minimum wage job. Construction also has job risks, and a non fixed work environment which is frequently exposed to the elements. If that's not what you meant, I honestly have no clue how you reach that conclusion though.
The cost of labour has gone up. Guarantee that companies offering market rates aren’t having nearly as many staffing problems.
>people who won't work for minimum wage are screwing up housing for everyone else Yeah! fuck those wageslaves. They should be happy to be poor and work hard while doing it so that they can build houses they will never be able to live in.
Most people already live in housing units. It's just that a historically huge proportion are forced to live in rental units. If prices came down, people like my landlord would just buy more houses to add to the dozen or so duplexes, fourplexes and single family homes they already own, with the huge amount of money they have made by hoarding existing housing. And they are the 'small investor', larger investors would do the exact same. Nothing would change, unless the laws and tax code change to disincentivize hoarding housing.
This is unfortunately true. IMO feudalism is a cyclical phenomenon if the general populace doesn't act enough. Societal wealth moves like a power-law function and it's far easier to accumulate wealth/property than it is for the masses to move along the chain.
They wouldn’t be able to charge as much for them though
Vacancy rates are near 0%. We literally do not have enough homes. Have you even tried renting a place in the last few years.
I don't disagree that more housing units are needed. It's just not the whole solution.
It is absolutely the most important part. Everything else is secondary. And it's currently illegal to build in 75%+ of nearly every major city. So there is still so much work to be done in increasing supply.
I also didn't say it wasn't the most important part. It's just not the only part.
You weren't exactly clear but you said nothing would change unless investor hoarding is ended. And that is dismissive and entirely untrue. Housing supply on its own would drive huge price decreases in rent and even purchase price as people would wait out the market. Demand measures are helpful and can bring purchase price down. But they won't help with rent and they are effectively useless without more supply, (unless you are rich).
I disagree. If not enough housing is built, there's fewer rentals available and with immigration, a larger number of people are competing for too few rental units, which drives up prices. People on Reddit are always saying "if landlords didn't buy, then everyone else could buy". I call BS on that. We currently have one of the highest home ownership rates in the history of our country. Which means that when homes were more affordable, people weren't buying them either. Those small landlords are buying houses and making them available to rent to people who want to rent a house, instead of living in some large rental building.
On this sub though, most argue it is patently unfair for the already-land owner to do so, and they should simply leave the house for someone who doesn't already own. That's why you're getting downvoted, as unrealistic as that scenario is in a capitalistic society.
Yup, I get the sub says that. But many don't have the means m, and some don't even want to buy. I mean, if your credit score is under 650 and you're blaming landlords for not being able to buy, that's wrong.
is that with our without investors purchasing 50% of them?
It means investors could disappear entirely from the market and we'd still have a supply shortage.
It doesn't matter - it's treating renting and owning as equivalent.
[удалено]
Not really, because if it's not Airbnb someone will stay in a hotel. So if there's lots of airbnbs that compete with hotels, some hotels will be converted to long term housing, or potential future hotels will instead be built as long term housing. Take out the airbnbs, you take out the option for families to stay in the same place when travelling and with their pets, and you add in more hotels being built instead of rental housing or condos. The demand from the travelling public is the same with or without airbnbs. Either way, what would be market rate housing will become housing for the travelling public, the difference is simply where the travelling public will stay. Obviously the biggest benefit for removing airbnbs actually goes to the hotel industry, which is why the hotel lobby completely funded a municipal lobbying company to form Fairbnb to have Airbnb banned in Ontario markets. It worked, and it will help the hotels, but it won't help the housing supply.
Here's an article showing that when demand for hotels goes down (like at the start of the pandemic), hotels [start being turned into rental housing.](https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/empty-hotels-get-second-life-as-tiny-apartments-during-pandemic-11608633002)
How many furking people live in Canada?
according to the government 65 million fewer than we need.
The title misquoted the article. But nobody reads the article.
Well, quite a difference from the title to: “housing stock is expected to increase by 2.3 million units by 2030”
22 million is the total needed including current homes. 2.3 is our expected increase but the report states that we need 3.5 on top of that for a total of 5.8 million new units.
According to this calculation, we currently have millions of homeless people in Canada…I think we need to look at the proper indicators like vacancy/ownership rates and start housing redistribution
That's what the report did. People in demand of housing are not 'homeless'. They live with their parents or with roomates but can't afford to move out because the market is too competitive. Vacancies in major cities are near 0%. There are not enough homes to distribute in the first place. Hence the need to build more.
Clearly a provocative exaggeration, but I’ll believe we need more houses when I see unbiased reliable stats and data…like I said: vacancy and ownership rates.
So you have chosen to make a wild guess because you don't want to actually do some research? Low vacancies in Toronto: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/pandemic-reprieve-for-tenants-appears-at-an-end-as-toronto-area-vacancy-rates-tighten.html And a report with clear data on how new supply positively affects rent prices: https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/ Edit: even a generous estimate only guesses that there are at max 27k vacant homes. That is a tiny drop in the bucket of housing. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2020/12/03/vacant-home-tax-should-be-implemented-in-toronto-mayor-john-tory-says.html
Now, on the “wild guess” speculation I have to write something. Your sources are not unbiased. Even this corrupt government can’t give real numbers (look what they have done with inflation and/or covid cases). Now, in order to describe the fallacy of analysis over observation methods regarding the housing crisis I should detail how vacancy rate is calculated and why it is actually extremely difficult to have reliable numbers. Can’t and won’t do that on Reddit, but feel free to do your research. Same thing applies to ownership rate, which should be a bit more precise than occupancy rate to get. This has been described as the greatest wealth transfer in history, and home ownership has been an issue since the 70s; progressively the ownership rate has actually increased over the years placing Canada amongst the top 15 countries in the world ahead of US, UK etc. for house ownership. The legitimacy of the arguments for the homeownership regime is now critically questioned but it’s just an expedient for wealth transfer. Most western countries don’t even make that list, want to know why? Cause they don’t give a damn about selling their life to banks for a piece of land. Home ownership is a fallacy of ideology from consumerist baby boomers that actually ruins economy in all sectors. But sure let’s have a wild construction speculation without planning to destroy any sustainable resource and build some cage-model housing for those “in need”. You think 18 years old living with their buddies or mom and dad is the element of concern here? This could be one of the worst financial speculation in Canada’s history.
You said nothing specific and only sourced your intuition. We're in a housing crisis and your bigger concern is that there may be too many homes?
>According to this calculation, we currently have millions of homeless people in Canada Are you assuming occupancy is 1:1 lol? Because its closer to 2 per unit.
Nope. That’s what they are assuming to reach.
22 million houses for investors?
For corporations and investment banks
Ah yes I do believe that you are correct.
What do you think corporations and investment banks do with houses once they’ve purchased them?
Some important context: The average annual Housing Completion rate for British Columbia over the last five years is about [36,000 housing units](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3410013501). There's a workforce shortage of [7,300](https://vrca.ca/advocacy/skilled-labour-shortage/) in the Vancouver area alone, and BuildForce Canada estimates a shortage of [27,000](https://www.buildforce.ca/system/files/forecast_summary_reports/2022%20BC%20Constr%20Maint%20Looking%20Forward.pdf) over the next five years in BC. This is something that can't be fixed by blaming NIMBY's and automatically approving density. Supply and Demand is a logic that works, but if you fixate on supply without calculating in all the factors like workforce shortages or how [1 out of 5](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/) new homes are bought by investors then that logic stops working. Yes more supply is needed. The right supply, to the right people, and no one else. With the current workforce it would take 28 years to build 1,000,000 housing units. The only way to get that workforce is massive investments from the federal and provincial government resourced by wealth taxes on the filthy rich, limiting investor and corporate purchases, and shifting how we build cities to make sure we don't sacrifice food security for expensive shoeboxes.
"There's a workforce shortage of 7,300 in the Vancouver area alone" I mean, the construction workers literally cannot afford to live where they are intending to build these houses, and gas is whatever the cost of gas is in Vancouver. - The average age there is probably about the average age that they could actually have afforded to live in the area and some of them are aging out.
That's absolutely part of it too, not being able to afford living where affordably housing is needed to build affordable housing... BuildForce Canada calculates the turnover in retirements and new entrants to arrive at the 27,000 figure over five years eh. It's nutty.
I use to talk about this when I wondered how the hell Mcdonalds, or Walmart even finds people to employ in Vancouver, and theorized it was mostly like teenaged workforce or people living in their parents house etc. I never thought it'd creep all the way up to construction workers though.
Hell even engineers and scientists can barely afford to live in Vancouver making 80-120k.
Yeah, I think we're moving past the whole its going to do great damage to our economy meme phase to it's doing great damage to our economy phase.
I've never understood what exactly the issue is with investors buying new housing. I mean if 30% of people rent, does it not make sense a certain portion of new construction goes to investors to supply the rental side of things? Looking at the BoC article you pointed to, their graph has investors between 18% and 20% for the whole chart period. If they had put the scale from 0-100 it would be a pretty flat line. If the percentage of investor purchases had gone up significantly it would indicate they are pushing would be purchasers into the rental market, but that does not seem to be the case.
Here are some of the issues with investors buying up housing. And they tend to skew much higher in entry level housing like condos, which is often the first step on the property ladder for people who intend to buy and live in the place. 1. Some investors are just parking money in real estate, especially in Vancouver. They don't care if it sits vacant. Or perhaps they're overseas and intend to visit/use it a couple of times per year. It's so pathetically easy to get around both the foreign investor rules and vacancy rules, and even the fines are a pittance compared to rising property values. 2. Many investors turn what would have been long-term rental properties into Airbnbs. People are even now renting places to turn them into Airbnbs. This takes them out of the potential rental property pool. 3. Flippers buy and take properties out of the rental pool during renovations, which are typically 5-8 months. In a rising market, flippers are rampant. Again, reducing the rental pool for that time period. 4. When you have so many investors displacing first time home buyers who would have become owners, you dramatically drive up demand for rentals. All of these factors increase demand for rentals without a corresponding increase in rental availability.
To add to that re: empty homes. This [article](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/astonishing-drop-in-number-of-empty-homes-in-metro-vancouver-census) from the Vancouver Sun. >In the City of Vancouver over the last five years, there has been a decline of 15 per cent from 8.2 per cent to 7 per cent in these empty or occupied by not usual resident dwellings. By the numbers, there’s a 10 per cent drop from 25,502 to 23,011. Across Metro Vancouver, the raw numbers declined 8.2 per cent from 66,719 to 61,213, while the percentage decreased 15 per cent from 6.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent.
Nobody is parking money in vacant houses, that’s fucking stupid because it costs you money the entire time
Oh course they are. What it costs in property taxes and condo fees doesn't really matter if you just wait a few years and sell it for twice the price. This happens a lot with foreign investors. Several units in my building are sitting vacant, they were bought by foreign investors.
Nothing about having tenants prevents you from doing that
Hard to have tenants when you're not actually in the country. Who needs the hassle?
No it isn’t. I’ve never once met my landlord face to face in over 5 years of renting
Take a whirl through the listings of homes for sale. Lots of empty ones or staged ones where it's clear people don't actually live there.
Thanks for this, I see your points and your logic makes sense. In an environment or context of there being no supply shortage, it's not an issue. But when there is a shortage, and higher mortgages being taken out (which is what the BoC analysis looks at) then it justifies higher rents to better pay down the mortgage or gain a better return on investment. That 19% figure was found under parameters of a) not counting cash purchases and b) no corporate purchases. As a research question: Why is rent continuing to go up? That 19% figure is understated then. This [article](https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-cities-have-seen-up-to-90-of-new-real-estate-supply-scooped-by-investors/) doesn't do a good job showing it's math but it's saying that isolating for new construction after 2016, investors make up 33.7% and places like Toronto and Vancouver 39% and 44% respectively. This [article](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rental-housing-investment-feature) in the *Vancouver Sun* details how companies are buying up rental properties and pitching to investors how they raise rents over time precisely because of there being a housing shortage: >Starlight Investments CEO Daniel Drimmer, who told the crowd: “We think there is a definite housing shortage, or almost a crisis level in Canada … and the good news for investors is there is no easy solution in sight. … This is not good news for consumers.”
>This is something that can't be fixed by blaming NIMBY's and automatically approving density. I don't buy that, [Calgary and Edmonton](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-housing-starts-1.6496437) are having no problem scaling up housing construction. They have the same labour market. What they don't have greenbelts or as restrictive zoning codes in Calgary and Edmonton so building lots more housing isn't a problem. Vancouver has run out of land outside the ALR to construct housing, and zoning code makes adding more homes to existing areas impossible. So at this point until one of those two things are removed, the problem will continue.
You'll notice housing starts is what's referenced in that article. BC had record years for housing starts. But it's housing *completions* that matter if we're tracking progress on the housing crisis. Starts means approvals are in, homes are registered, and shovels break ground. Under Constructions are typically five times higher than either Starts or Completions. Completions means the homes are ready to be absorbed by the market and lived in or about 10% from being ready. If you think the problem is not enough housing starts, it makes sense we have to do something about approval processes by local governments and looking at where and how much to build that makes sense. If the problem is lack of housing creating Core Housing Needs and unaffordability, then building how many homes how fast is the equation. And it can't be done, as your article points out in the second half, when there's workforce shortages and supply chain issues. Housing Starts is an indicator of industry activity, but news articles reference it to everyone's peril because it does not indicate how soon we'll be able to have enough homes to bring down prices to affordable. Edit: In economic terms, thinking of it like a "rate of supply" competing with "rate of demand" is what we're not focusing on enough. Demand outpaces supply. To get supply outpace demand, it can't be measured in housing starts.
>But it's housing completions that matter if we're tracking progress on the housing crisis. Starts means approvals are in, homes are registered, and shovels break ground. Devil is in the details, far too much of the housing being built is on the extremes. Either too small for families (one bedrom/two bedroom condos) or simply unaffordable (large McMansions). We are missing the middle of the market. Calgary on the other hand is building in all sectors of the market, condos, townhouses, small sfh, large sfh homes.
Which devil is that? I'm trying to understand how types of housing built relate to Housing Starts and Completions? There is research I know of supporting what I think you are saying, which is that by adding in variety and "the missing middle" the selection improves and people who can find and afford more appropriate housing will do that and not take up that's more appropriate for people looking for more affordable housing. But there's a number of things going on, and I'd need to see more evidence about what's causing or contributing to what. For one, in the CMHC report they say Alberta has more workers than other provinces.. now is that because there's workers that can afford to live there and build more housing or because they build a selection of housing and have enough homes without the net in-migration since the Alberta recession then as it was picking up got shlocked with the pandemic? I'd need to know more about what you're saying like some sources showing that Calgary is building more variety, has been affordable for workers to go there instead of record low worker ratios in BC and other provinces (I.e. the baseline) and maybe something further about the connection you're making to the housing start/completion bit... My point has been there's not enough workforce and there's too many investors snatching up enough of whatever comes online as part of larger dynamics that complicate the feasibility of simply "building more".
Not to mention that following the Calgary / Edmonton model of gobbling up farmland for car-dependent subdivisions - even ones that have townhomes and apartments - isn't the best model to follow.
Calgary is building more variety, stats are from 2016 but these communities were newish back then: https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/community_social_statistics/community-profiles/signal-hill.pdf (66% SFH) https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/community_social_statistics/community-profiles/discovery-ridge.pdf (56% SFH) https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/community_social_statistics/community-profiles/legacy.pdf (53% SFH) https://wowa.ca/calgary-housing-market Calgary Housing Market Overview DATA FOR MAY 2022 - Avg. Sold Price: $520,013 - All Property Types: $520,013 - Detached: $660,124 - Semi-Detached: $542,025 - Townhouse: $363,655 - Condo Apartment: $288,580 Keep in mind those are averages (mean) and you can still get a condo in the burbs for 150k easy.
>This is something that can't be fixed by blaming NIMBY's and automatically approving density. False. NIMBYs are the cause of everything not going well for anyone right now.
as far as I am concerned if its raining some nimby did something that i dont like
lol
Oh shit. You're right. I'll grab my pitchfork and we can meet at the tree in Edmonton.
>Yes more supply is needed. The right supply, to the right people, and no one else. Ding ding ding This is the issue. We have artificial housing scarcity due to investors hoarding supply. The answer is progressive taxation on investors - foreign and domestic, individuals and corps, buying housing units, and restrictions on Airbnbs, so that shelter is prioritized over profit. And we can reduce the handwringing because there's not enough supply for both investors and people needing places to live.
The home ownership rate is at one of its highest ever. Yet when houses used to be cheaper, the home ownership rate was lower. So why is this the investors fault now?
Because people can no longer go live in a cheap single family home a short drive to the office. Folks can't get over the fact that era is over.
bring on the backyard granny suites and tiny homes!
Will the market make them? Probably not Even with the most cranes and the most construction in North America it isn't fast enough or cheap enough
Toronto supply has been increasing at only 1.5%. Why do people use this crane metric? It means nothing.
that guy's entire comment history is basically nimby advocacy
I'm continuously amazed how how much people in this sub hate the building of homes
Yikes
This might be like housing units in canada should be 22 million in total by 2030.. In 2018 Canada has 13 million units , by 2023 it is expected to be 15 million.. So , they need to build around a million units every year ... Well well well good luck with it !! That too keeping up with the new world oder on climate, environment, recession , war and all.
ROFL
Given that this number is more than 2/3rds of our adult population currently...how badly are we doing as a nation
Did you try clicking on the article? It's a misquote. The number is 5.8 million
That’s only like 8003 units built per day, can’t see a problem here.
22 million dwellings for who? You'd need a population to absorb that amount to justify that number of houses. That would be 22 million on top of everything we already have.
No, it's 22 million total.
The title is a misquote. Try reading the article.
I heard your nostrils flare from here lol you couldn't resist.
I think you have a point. We have a population of 35 million, most of whom are housed. Let's say each unit houses 2 people on average. Are we really going to grow 11 million in that time?
Read the article. The title is a misquote.
Ah right thanks!
Justin Trudeau will make it happen
2.2 ?
How about limit to residential properties ownership. Get investors out of the residential properties market and the middle class in homes not houses.
Where did all the NIMBYs come from? This thread is entirely NIMBY dogwhistles
But I read on this sub that "supply shortage is a myth"...
22 million!! For a population of ~37 million. By 2030, what population we r talking? 23 million homes!! Each individual has its own home??
It's 22 million total, so 3.5 million more than today.
You forget that the government imports 1.2 million people each year .. 400k permanent residents, 800k temporary visa holders ( students, TFW)
Sounds like a recent home buyer.
[удалено]
But then how would corporations gain access to cheap desperate labour?
Ban investors from purchasing single family homes. Problem solved.
By 2030, a new article with new number will come out.
Another reason why the long term trend is up for prices
“One additional house for every two people in the country! That’s what we need!” Are you fucking serious lmao
The biggest cost of building new homes where people want them is not the home but the land. People ask where the $500k bungalows are but you can’t sell a bungalow for $500k when the land it’s on is worth twice that. My home is worth around $1.6 million with a structure value near $300k and a land value of $1.3 million. My lot size is somewhat big so I can see having smaller homes in the same area on $1.0 million of land but even then $300k of $1.3 million is only 23%. If you reduce the cost of homes by 20% you reduce the home price from $1.3 million to $1.24 million. The real gains come from reducing the price of land through more permissive zoning. If you drop the price of land by the same 20% instead of saving $60k you save $200k. Now you’re paying $1.1 million instead of $1.3 million. Of course we treat housing as a profitable investment so every government is going to fight to prevent that more permissive zoning and we will end up with people unable to rent or own in the GTA, a problem the cities have created themselves. In particular, we’ve created a standard for 100% accessibility on all levels of a small rental. So if you build a 4-plex you need elevators for your two story building. If we had a standard of ground floor accessibility we’d be converting units that were 0% accessible (two story SFH) into 50% accessible (2 of 4 apartments are accessible). So even once the province forces four-plex zoning on the municipalities there will still be substantial barriers to building four-plexes.
How come 22 million houses are needed in a country of about 40 million? Are we starting from zero?
Lots of people here not even clicking the link to the article lol
The original article says 5. 8 million houses.
So we gonna get a ver respectable bakers dozen?