General Updates and News

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Definitely two distinct issues. That of diploma mills is an issue unto itself, whether we are talking about foreign or domestic students. If however we stick to legit educational institutions, then there is massive benefit to bringing foreign students here (at least in a time/place where there is available housing).

I think the diploma mills are net negative (and unfair to the people paying them, and of questionable legitimacy; basically they collect $ for public benefits like work authorization) but I did notice some problems at large universities in Canada too. Not so much in Halifax, which didn't have the same scale of foreign money coming in.

There are only so many skilled faculty and grad students and there's only so much space in the short term, so the lure of higher foreign student tuition can displace domestic students. I also sometimes saw lowered standards for students who paid more, which tends to dilute the reputation of institutions. I think it's hard for large tuition bucks (or donations) not to have a bit of a corrupting influence. This reaches crazy levels in the US.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by kzt79

So true. Are we somehow fundamentally more passive or otherwise accepting than other populations? Just look at how until the past year or so any discussion at all around immigration was verboten... and it mostly worked! People KNOW and can SEE firsthand meaningful declines in their living standard yet continue to vote for and support the same destructive policies that are harming them. Some kind of society-level Stockholm syndrome?!

It's because multiple generations of Canadians had it too easy and rarely had to suffer or sacrifice for comforts they took for granted. That complacency created a feedback loop where those afforded comforts, in some cases, greater than what they were really worth acted as attack dogs against those that questioned the system. We're so far gone now that we can't really "reform" the system anymore because it's so broken, it needs to fail before being rebuilt. The only reason why people are angry is because it's hit their pocketbooks at a rate which is impossible to ignore. Even then, most people still don't really know the flaws in our system, all they care about it that fact they are personally affected by the status quo and they want to bitch and cry about it.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the diploma mills are net negative (and unfair to the people paying them, and of questionable legitimacy; basically they collect $ for public benefits like work authorization) but I did notice some problems at large universities in Canada too. Not so much in Halifax, which didn't have the same scale of foreign money coming in.

There are only so many skilled faculty and grad students and there's only so much space in the short term, so the lure of higher foreign student tuition can displace domestic students. I also sometimes saw lowered standards for students who paid more, which tends to dilute the reputation of institutions. I think it's hard for large tuition bucks (or donations) not to have a bit of a corrupting influence. This reaches crazy levels in the US.

Not only does it displace locals but it creates a lazy dependency on higher income streams in the short-term and universities have to expand their facilities to accommodate that growth. If our universities stayed roughly the same size they were 20 years ago this national adjustment for restricting international students wouldn't hit hard beyond ~2 years. However, now these universities have more facilities to maintain and populate, more staff on the books they should have never needed, a whole knock-on effect that's difficult to amend in short order.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

It's because multiple generations of Canadians had it too easy and rarely had to suffer or sacrifice for comforts they took for granted. That complacency created a feedback loop where those afforded comforts, in some cases, greater than what they were really worth acted as attack dogs against those that questioned the system. We're so far gone now that we can't really "reform" the system anymore because it's so broken, it needs to fail before being rebuilt. The only reason why people are angry is because it's hit their pocketbooks at a rate which is impossible to ignore. Even then, most people still don't really know the flaws in our system, all they care about it that fact they are personally affected by the status quo and they want to bitch and cry about it.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but there’s a lot of revisionist history here, some of it is downright fantasy, and a disservice to all the folks I have known over the years who struggled to make ends meet, and didn’t whine and complain about all the “comforts” of this fantasy world that they didn’t have, but apparently they were supposed to feel entitled to. Either that, or you and I have lived in parallel universes…

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Not only does it displace locals but it creates a lazy dependency on higher income streams in the short-term and universities have to expand their facilities to accommodate that growth. If our universities stayed roughly the same size they were 20 years ago this national adjustment for restricting international students wouldn't hit hard beyond ~2 years. However, now these universities have more facilities to maintain and populate, more staff on the books they should have never needed, a whole knock-on effect that's difficult to amend in short order.

I think it's much the same as immigration and foreign capital flows directed into real estate. The best-case scenario is to welcome the investment and handle it correctly, but that depends on a certain level of institutional and cultural integrity. Other worse options are to encourage these things and mishandle them, or ban them. The federal outcome was generally mishandle -> people get mad -> reactionary bans or performative measures.

To make it more concrete, I don't see anything wrong with selling condos to Chinese investors in Vancouver. The problem is locals were being excluded from housing. It's solvable, and in fact if you do it properly the investment dollars from abroad can improve living standards for everyone, but it never was solved or even acknowledged as a problem by people who were profiting from it.

The lack of acknowledgement and broken promises led to lower levels of trust. Which frankly for that BC example were never amazing to begin with. For federal immigration, we did have confidence in the system that was damaged by mismanagement during the Trudeau years.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but there’s a lot of revisionist history here, some of it is downright fantasy, and a disservice to all the folks I have known over the years who struggled to make ends meet, and didn’t whine and complain about all the “comforts” of this fantasy world that they didn’t have, but apparently they were supposed to feel entitled to. Either that, or you and I have lived in parallel universes…

It's a very complicated topic and the impacts vary so much from person to person. There are plenty of poor older people who didn't cash in. They do benefit from generous programs but there isn't anything wrong with it really.

There is a disconnect where middle income families are paying pretty heavy taxes while you can be a multinational permanent resident (as an example), manage a 7-figure portfolio of real estate in Canada, report no income, and pay virtually nothing in taxes while making millions.

I do think this is aided and abetted somewhat by a comfortable older demographic that has done very well since the 2010's and has been very slow to "get" how things are in the job and real estate market. Or they do get it and just don't care as it doesn't affect them directly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's a very complicated topic and the impacts vary so much from person to person. There are plenty of poor older people who didn't cash in. They do benefit from generous programs but there isn't anything wrong with it really.

There is a disconnect where middle income families are paying pretty heavy taxes while you can be a multinational permanent resident (as an example), manage a 7-figure portfolio of real estate in Canada, report no income, and pay virtually nothing in taxes while making millions.

I do think this is aided and abetted somewhat by a comfortable older demographic that has done very well since the 2010's and has been very slow to "get" how things are in the job and real estate market. Or they do get it and just don't care as it doesn't affect them directly.

I'm not saying that there aren't real problems that the younger generations are feeling much worse than the generation before them. It's obvious, and frankly you'd have to be totally disconnected from society to not realize it.

I am, however, reeling against the false narratives that have been created for some time now, that some people might actually believe are factual. Leading to some sort of resentment and perhaps even hate, that clouds the discussion and reduces the credibility of the presenter (to those that see through the false narratives). The blame game has evolved into a sort of art form, and IMHO it really isn't healthy for our society.

I also realize that I'm not going to change anybody's mind, as these days people believe what they want to believe, and there is always an online source to reinforce whichever flavour of belief they wish to support. Most of the time I just let it slide, but occasionally, when it seems a little overinflated, I try to point it out - but know I'm mostly facing a hostile audience (conceptually, not literally... mostly) on SSP. Enough bloviating for now...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not saying that there aren't real problems that the younger generations are feeling much worse than the generation before them. It's obvious, and frankly you'd have to be totally disconnected from society to not realize it.

My experience talking to older relatives (who I care a lot about and do not consider enemies) is that they are only semi able to relate to the problems. And often when I explain what's happening in Vancouver, they don't understand the magnitude of it or how it's likely a preview of what will happen all over Canada.

One trend is that people say you can always make it if you try, and they talk about some success story like a young couple of doctors who managed to buy a townhouse. It's true that if you are in the top 10% of young people you still do okay in 2025 but you're still worse off than the top 10% of 2005 and the 90% are struggling. Many families succeeded in Canada in the 80's and 90's with just a basic education and basic jobs. Now it's becoming rare.

I tend to know more progressive older people and they believe in things like unions and anti-racism. There is nothing wrong with that. But they did tend to view the backlash against the diploma mills and 8-to-an-apartment "students" as somehow racist or younger/urban people becoming "right wing". By the time the problem was acknowledged, it was too late and housing prices had jumped up all across the country.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is a disconnect where middle income families are paying pretty heavy taxes while you can be a multinational permanent resident (as an example), manage a 7-figure portfolio of real estate in Canada, report no income, and pay virtually nothing in taxes while making millions.

I am curious about this. Do those who have permanent resident status not pay Canadian income tax? I truly do not know.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am curious about this. Do those who have permanent resident status not pay Canadian income tax? I truly do not know.

There was some discussion of this in the Canada section and an article about it, but I don't have the link now.

The gist of it was that the federal government body that looks after permanent residency status and the CRA don't coordinate, so it is possible for people to have different incompatible statuses for different purposes. There have also been articles about how Canada doesn't really track where people are physically (e.g., exit controls; in the UK you do passport control when you leave as well as when you enter). If you fly to China and fly back a year later, the federal government doesn't necessarily track this and consider you to have been absent.

So in practice there are likely people from abroad with permanent residency status in Canada who don't pay income tax and may or may not actually reside here, but have multimillion dollar portfolios of real estate here they pay no taxes on.

It used to be pretty common for rich families to spread out primary residences among relatives (child A owns this mansion, child B owns that one, husband and wife are "separated" so each lives in their own primary residence).

Another phenomenon was Canadian banks giving mortgages to foreign students and people falsifying their income. In Canada, you can provide a PDF that says you make millions per year and I guess that covers the due diligence for the banks. In the USA, there is a mechanism for the IRS to confirm income and that check is required. I'd imagine our financial system is a bit weaker than it looks on paper as a result of this.

[New]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I am, however, reeling against the false narratives that have been created for some time now, that some people might actually believe are factual. Leading to some sort of resentment and perhaps even hate, that clouds the discussion and reduces the credibility of the presenter (to those that see through the false narratives). The blame game has evolved into a sort of art form, and IMHO it really isn't healthy for our society.

I rarely comment on here...more just lurk but I have to 100% agree with this comments. Social media has brainwashed younger generations into believing baby-boomers or Gen X lived in some sort of Shangri-La. When I see these sort of comments I always like to point out the reality of living through the 70's to the late 90's.


I think there are many when discussing topics like this loose sight of the fact that decades ago there was far less disposable income spent by households. People got on the property ladder with small starter homes. Fewer people pursued university education. Eating out , even fast food was a rare treat. There was no all-inclusive vacations, no cell phones or computers, no wi-fi bills. Coffee and lunch was made at home and taken to work in a box and thermos. There was often high unemployment rates. And contrary to current beliefs wages for younger people starting out were usually not enough to afford rent in a major city for an individual apartment. There are Canadian stats that show us this. I could go on with more examples

Compared to decades ago restaurants are now abundant and often packed on the weekends. People are happily dishing out $10 for a glass of beer. People are piling into breakfast restaurants paying $25 for eggs and waffles. Coffee shops are everywhere with people lined up for $7.00 cappuccinos.


Our standard of living currently far exceeds past generations. Sure housing is an issue and that needs to be addressed. In many cities those prices, both rent and sales, have been starting to decline.


The responses I usually get is unoriginal sarcastic comments about bootstraps or avocado toast. The reality is there is some truth through the sarcasm of those comments. Working hard, taking chances, being prudent with spending tends to get you further ahead in life. It sometimes feels like an entire generation or two has been convinced otherwise by social media.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New

Our standard of living currently far exceeds past generations.

You are correct but it's also right to think that standards of living have stopped improving and begun to decline in more recent years, and some or all of that is due to policy choices. 2015 living standards were far above 1970, but it's debatable that 2025 is much ahead of 2015, if it is at all for younger people. And there aren't a lot of new conveniences in 2025 that we didn't have in 2015.

The intergenerational comparison is often irrelevant. If the government can improve policies to make people 10% better off it should do so. It does not matter if people are already better off than 50 years ago.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by New

I rarely comment on here...more just lurk but I have to 100% agree with this comments. Social media has brainwashed younger generations into believing baby-boomers or Gen X lived in some sort of Shangri-La. When I see these sort of comments I always like to point out the reality of living through the 70's to the late 90's.


I think there are many when discussing topics like this loose sight of the fact that decades ago there was far less disposable income spent by households. People got on the property ladder with small starter homes. Fewer people pursued university education. Eating out , even fast food was a rare treat. There was no all-inclusive vacations, no cell phones or computers, no wi-fi bills. Coffee and lunch was made at home and taken to work in a box and thermos. There was often high unemployment rates. And contrary to current beliefs wages for younger people starting out were usually not enough to afford rent in a major city for an individual apartment. There are Canadian stats that show us this. I could go on with more examples

Compared to decades ago restaurants are now abundant and often packed on the weekends. People are happily dishing out $10 for a glass of beer. People are piling into breakfast restaurants paying $25 for eggs and waffles. Coffee shops are everywhere with people lined up for $7.00 cappuccinos.


Our standard of living currently far exceeds past generations. Sure housing is an issue and that needs to be addressed. In many cities those prices, both rent and sales, have been starting to decline.


The responses I usually get is unoriginal sarcastic comments about bootstraps or avocado toast. The reality is there is some truth through the sarcasm of those comments. Working hard, taking chances, being prudent with spending tends to get you further ahead in life. It sometimes feels like an entire generation or two has been convinced otherwise by social media.

Excellent comment. I fully agree with your points. I have a prime example from a neighbor. A young couple arrived on the scene here a few years ago and bought a starter home a few doors up. At the time it was just the two of them and initially there were some renovations done to bring the inside up to current standards. No idea what those cost but it was understandable, as it had been occupied by an elderly couple for many years who had owned it for decades.

Then kid #1 arrived, followed by #2. This seemed to just increase their spending. One car became 2, even though the wife never seemed to leave home much. Then those were replaced with hybrids. Mr. Amazon became a daily visitor, sometimes several times a day. Every two weeks the husband places a mountain of cardboard delivery boxes at the curb, not broken down as HRM requires but no matter, the contractor throws them all in the back of the truck. I'm sure the husband has his share of $7 coffees and dining out at lunch. I cannot imagine given my own experience at their ages, when every dollar was precious. I always hated bringing my lunch to work but did that sometimes because money was tight in the early years, and I always paid for my coffee from the office machine to save money there as well. But it is truly a different world today. If they are making enough to live like that without a mountain of debt about to crash down on them, good for them I suppose. But it sure is different.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

You are correct but it's also right to think that standards of living have stopped improving and begun to decline in more recent years, and some or all of that is due to policy choices. 2015 living standards were far above 1970, but it's debatable that 2025 is much ahead of 2015, if it is at all for younger people. And there aren't a lot of new conveniences in 2025 that we didn't have in 2015.

The intergenerational comparison is often irrelevant. If the government can improve policies to make people 10% better off it should do so. It does not matter if people are already better off than 50 years ago.

Well, that sounds dangerously like the gloom and doom truisms that the young planners and university students post on the local Reddit sub. If you're buying the new $1000 iPhone every 2 years and traveling to Borneo because some influencer posted about their similar trip online, I doubt that happened much even 10 years ago. Forget about the $7 cups of coffee, which were a thing then too, but not $7. Fast and not-so-fast food is hideously expensive now but ya gotta eat, right? Sit-down lunch menus are usually offering entrees close to $20, but places are still busy. If only Subway would bring back the $5 footlong...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sit-down lunch menus are usually offering entrees close to $20, but places are still busy. If only Subway would bring back the $5 footlong...

I was discussing this while out last night at a pretty expensive place. We are a bit older and were wondering how many 20-somethings could afford the prices. I definitely didn't go out to those things when I was that age, and even today though I can afford it I have a hard time "wasting" money and not saving.

But I think it is a situation of haves and have-nots, especially here in Vancouver. One factor is real estate. Some young kids have parents who sold houses for $2-4M. The parents pay their bills, pay for school, and set them up with a condo or free rent. The money they make at work is used for going out and partying. Other younger people are on their own and they simply can't afford those things. The ones I know who truly have to support themselves on basic jobs live with roommates and don't eat in restaurants regularly.

Canada also has immigration and foreign students, some of whom are wealthy in their home countries and fully paid for (for example, China has many very rich people now and some come to study in Canada; it is not like 1920 with poor people coming on steamships). Their spending power doesn't reflect what young people are earning in Canada.

I would much prefer an economy where hard work pays off and matters more than who your parents are. I'm sure Vancouver is much more distorted than Halifax, but Halifax is moving in the same direction. In the 90's and 2000's you never really made much off of real estate in Halifax unless you made some meaningful improvement. People simply viewed houses as places to live, not leveraged investment instruments.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

The intergenerational comparison is often irrelevant.

I agree, but that doesn't prevent it from being presented on a regular basis as being something of grave importance, and a rallying cry for some sort of action (exactly what action is apparently required has never been really clearly stated or obvious to me).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

In the 90's and 2000's you never really made much off of real estate in Halifax unless you made some meaningful improvement. People simply viewed houses as places to live, not leveraged investment instruments.

I'm not sure of the point here. Most people still look at their houses as places to live. If they want to move, they sell their $700,000 home but still have to buy another $700,000+ home, or pay $3000+ per month to rent a small apartment. If they are near end-of-life, then their "riches" get passed to younger generations, who still have to use the money to pay for inflated real estate. Nobody is getting rich here, except the people who are already rich.

That said... 30+ years ago, there were also rich people who could afford to buy homes as investments, and the rest of us who couldn't. That hasn't really changed, except that the price tags have increased.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New

I rarely comment on here...more just lurk but I have to 100% agree with this comments. Social media has brainwashed younger generations into believing baby-boomers or Gen X lived in some sort of Shangri-La. When I see these sort of comments I always like to point out the reality of living through the 70's to the late 90's.


I think there are many when discussing topics like this loose sight of the fact that decades ago there was far less disposable income spent by households. People got on the property ladder with small starter homes. Fewer people pursued university education. Eating out , even fast food was a rare treat. There was no all-inclusive vacations, no cell phones or computers, no wi-fi bills. Coffee and lunch was made at home and taken to work in a box and thermos. There was often high unemployment rates. And contrary to current beliefs wages for younger people starting out were usually not enough to afford rent in a major city for an individual apartment. There are Canadian stats that show us this. I could go on with more examples

Compared to decades ago restaurants are now abundant and often packed on the weekends. People are happily dishing out $10 for a glass of beer. People are piling into breakfast restaurants paying $25 for eggs and waffles. Coffee shops are everywhere with people lined up for $7.00 cappuccinos.


Our standard of living currently far exceeds past generations. Sure housing is an issue and that needs to be addressed. In many cities those prices, both rent and sales, have been starting to decline.


The responses I usually get is unoriginal sarcastic comments about bootstraps or avocado toast. The reality is there is some truth through the sarcasm of those comments. Working hard, taking chances, being prudent with spending tends to get you further ahead in life. It sometimes feels like an entire generation or two has been convinced otherwise by social media.

Thanks for making the effort to speak out. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has taken note of this. I appreciate your comments.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not sure of the point here. Most people still look at their houses as places to live. If they want to move, they sell their $700,000 home but still have to buy another $700,000+ home, or pay $3000+ per month to rent a small apartment. If they are near end-of-life, then their "riches" get passed to younger generations, who still have to use the money to pay for inflated real estate. Nobody is getting rich here, except the people who are already rich.

That said... 30+ years ago, there were also rich people who could afford to buy homes as investments, and the rest of us who couldn't. That hasn't really changed, except that the price tags have increased.

I'm not so sure that's totally true. Certainly when I was younger only the doctors, lawyers and people who worked in parts of the financial sector, or successful nouveau-riche entrepreneurs were able to afford high-end real estate in the south end. As their offspring grew up, the wealth was shared to allow them to live in the style to which they were accustomed when they in turn were married. Money breeds money very often, nothing new about that.

But we now have many more nouveau-riche people buying expensive property - young software bros, crypto winners, online entrepeneurs, you name it, along with come-from-aways who arrive here. I will not soon forget the convoy of supercars I saw pulled into a parking lot a year or two ago with nobody driving them appearing to be more than 30. Some were clearly from elsewhere judging by the voices I head talking to each other. The people who maintain and sell them those supercars clearly do very well. A million-dollar Ferrari or Lambo must come with a pretty good sales commission. Even if the money comes from China or wherever, that part pumps up the local economy and lets those locals build an affluent lifestyle for as long as it lasts.

[markbeaver]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

DEMO-2025-09019 says "Demolish just the house on 5515 Russell St, Halifax, NS."

The lots are still separate and the building permit for 3050 Gottingen is still 7 floors - 26 units. That could always change.

Interesting that the Russell Street address for this demo+building permit for 3050 Gottingen Street seems to have morphed. Looking at the online maps now, the 3050 Gottingen Street address has disappeared. And the Russell Street address now has the two adjacent lots fused into one, called 5515 Russell Street. Has the building permit been updated, anyone know?