Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You got it all wrong. I advocated for increasing the minimum wage. The rest of your post is nonsense. We're not talking about TFWs, we're talking about immigration. Permanent new Canadians.

I'm centre, not left.

My advice to take a lower wage is following that posters opinions to their logical conclusion, which doesn't seem very realistic.

That's actually exactly what I was referring to.

When it comes to moral issues like trans issues and racism, you're totally on the left and even arguably far left. Not even close to the centre.

Whereas on economic issues you label as "centre".

So you accept that there will be economic losers if it's bad for business, even if it "— to be them".

But OTOH IIRC you prioritize trans people's "rights" (even when still biological males) in all cases over the concerns of cis women, and consider that it's really only white people who can be racist.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken or have cut corners, but that's really what I've taken away from y exchanges with you and your ideological peers on here, over the past several months.

Even if all of this doesn't fit you to a T personally, it's still an extremely common suite of policy positions for people on the left these days.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rofina

I think being rhetorical is a little below you.

What you said makes little sense and reeks of the "liberal urban elite" vibe that conservatives detest, and I think you know it.

Its non sensical to ask Canadians to take reductions in wages to match what TFW's are willing to work for. If Tim Hortons cant pay above minimum wage and operate, let it go bankrupt, don't bail them out with a constant flow of TFW's that are willing to work for below what Canadians are. JJBean has voluntarily paid well above minimum wage and I see new locations opening up - market is rewarding them.

The idea behind governing is supposed to be to execute will of the people; I doubt many people want a reduction in standard of living.
If bringing in TFW's is reducing the standard of living for a measurable amount of Canadians, its perfectly reasonable for those Canadians to ask if those workers should be brought in.

Because you and I happen to immigration should be encouraged, doesn't make it right.

Since you typically speak in favor for left of center policies and platforms, than one would logically assume that you favor the ability of local business to produce increasing profits, over that of average Canadians being able to increase their quality of life.

The next logical step is that the left is "in bed with corporate interests."

I trust we can get past the fact that were talking in insanely broad generalizations for sake of discussion.

You and Antigonish and milomilo have made some really good points.

It brings to mind a question I asked earlier today: whose interests is the government supposed to defend? Citizens or corporations?

I understand that corporations actually employ millions of citizens, but it's still dubious to prioritize their interests over people.

This all sounds like a defence of trickle-down economics, which I thought these guys derided as a right-wing trope...

The world's been turned upside down: progressives as crypto-defenders of Reaganesque trickle-down economics!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You and Antigonish and milomilo have made some really good points.

It brings to mind a question I asked earlier today: whose interests is the government supposed to defend? Citizens or corporations?

I understand that corporations actually employ millions of citizens, but it's still dubious to prioritize their interests over people.

This all sounds like a defence of trickle-down economics, which I thought these guys derided as a right-wing trope...

The world's been turned upside down: progressives as crypto-defenders of Reaganesque trickle-down economics!

My position is government serves the citizens, but that it often coincides with the interests of the corporations.

I'm obviously a true believer in the power of markets but also acknowledge there are places where markets don't work and market failures. And when companies get to big or powerful, the market ceases to function. It's up to government to identify where the market doesn't work.

Housing is an area where many people think the free market has failed. But that is a total misreading of the situation. Construction is one of the least free, most regulated markets there is. If the free market were actually free, you'd see far more construction because there is massive profit to be made in somewhere like Vancouver. But there would be downsides, some more important than others. IMO, the government has gone way too far at restricting housing in most western cities, and I believe NIMBYism is the most insidious negative behaviour in modern societies (it happens in more than just housing).

As for immigration, I support it because it makes countries richer - especially countries with tons of room like Canada and the US. But it shouldn't just be low skilled workers that harm the poorest Canadians just to give you and me cheap coffee. And the government has a role to make the rules of the game as fair as they can be to the most people.

Not that I think you think this of me, but I don't see myself as a progressive or a Reaganite, or most other ideologies. I think everyone should think like this. Probably the two pieces of ideology I stick to are individual freedom, up to the point it impacts others, and the power of markets.

[goodgrowth]

The thing is we could have our cake and eat it too when it comes to population growth and housing if we were smarter about it.

The fact is real estate is our secret sauce industry because of our stability as a nation/standard of living. We probably only compete in the same way with a handful of nations in this industry.

If we loosened restrictions on land use and development, got rid of zoning, increased infrastructure spending, increased number of people working in the trades industries + had high immigration we could have a permanent construction/development boom that would also keep prices reasonable.

But this comes back to my original point about immigration. So many are just blindly for it without adopting the pro-development mindset that's required.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm obviously a true believer in the power of markets but also acknowledge there are places where markets don't work and market failures. And when companies get to big or powerful, the market ceases to function. It's up to government to identify where the market doesn't work.
.

Unlike democratically-elected governments, corporations aren't accountable to the people outside of a specific group of their own shareholders.

They are free market supporters as long as it serves their interests, but less enthusiastic about a truly competitive environment when they reach the top of the heap.

Looking at you GAFAs.

All of which to say that I agree.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

If we agree a skilled labor shortage results in increased wages in those sectors.

Why would I not think that a labor shortage for entry level positions would do the same to those positions?

But we never saw it happen.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Neoliberalism.

The biggest issue with wage stagnation at the bottom has to do primarily with TFWs. This country simply does not need more fast food joints and a steady flow of wage slaves to prop up franchise owners.

Yep I'm very much against the TFW program, apart from certain industries like agriculture.

Originally Posted by Antigonish

There will always a subsection of the population that simply does not have the aptitude or ability to learn skilled trades or professional/technical fields. Those people need jobs in the service sector or they are perpetually stuck on welfare and a net drain on society. They don't have to be, but if they are constantly undercut by immigration and TFWs they have no bargaining power to provide for themselves. You can keep the minimum wage as is, lower the working age to 15 and still have a constant demand for people working jobs at gas stations and digging ditches for road work, as long as there is bargaining power for those workers to stay loyal to their employers. In the end of the day you cannot undercut domestic labour and expect good things for society.

That's why I'd rather see less TFW and a higher minimum wage.

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Also, this country does not suffer from a labour shortage of skilled industries, our industries are f**king dogshit regarding financial offerings then complain how they cannot find employees. Too many of my peers (early 30s) are overeducated, underpaid, and overworked. It's a complete lie.

But we just showed how wages have increased substantially in Vancouver when there was a real demand. It takes two to tango, your friends need to start looking for better paying jobs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

When it comes to moral issues like trans issues and racism, you're totally on the left and even arguably far left. Not even close to the centre.

I am? Is there room for moderate levels of racism in the centre? Please do tell me more.

Originally Posted by Acajack

So you accept that there will be economic losers if it's bad for business, even if it "— to be them".

I don't know what your point is here. But there will be economic losers when it comes to progress in general. Buggy whip manufacturing comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Acajack

But OTOH IIRC you prioritize trans people's "rights" (even when still biological males) in all cases over the concerns of cis women, and consider that it's really only white people who can be racist.

What? I've hardly waded into any trans discussions. It doesn't enter my mind and I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if all of this doesn't fit you to a T personally, it's still an extremely common suite of policy positions for people on the left these days.

LOL so it's not me, you're just straw manning my arguments to rant. Got it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

But this comes back to my original point about immigration. So many are just blindly for it without adopting the pro-development mindset that's required.

I totally agree with this and it's a common trait, the stereotype is the California liberal that says they support immigration, but will also fight tooth and nail any development within 5 miles of their house.

Honestly I don't know how to make it better. The more wealthy people get, the more they protect what they have.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I totally agree with this and it's a common trait, the stereotype is the California liberal that says they support immigration, but will also fight tooth and nail any development within 5 miles of their house.

Honestly I don't know how to make it better. The more wealthy people get, the more they protect what they have.

It's the same thing where people think we should ban sprawl then immediately complain about how hard it is to afford a detached home today. Like.. what do you expect if you want to effectively ban constructing new detached homes? If you want to ban sprawl that's all and good, but it has implications. 100% intensification to accommodate people is going to see big condo buildings built behind peoples houses and people aren't going to be able to afford housing types that sprawl previously made affordable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I am? Is there room for moderate levels of racism in the centre? Please do tell me more.




I don't know what your point is here. But there will be economic losers when it comes to progress in general. Buggy whip manufacturing comes to mind.



What? I've hardly waded into any trans discussions. It doesn't enter my mind and I have no idea what you're talking about.




LOL so it's not me, you're just straw manning my arguments to rant. Got it.

If the shoe fits...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If the shoe fits...

Great argument. You're just a troll.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Great argument. You're just a troll.

Sure I am.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I totally agree with this and it's a common trait, the stereotype is the California liberal that says they support immigration, but will also fight tooth and nail any development within 5 miles of their house.

Honestly I don't know how to make it better. The more wealthy people get, the more they protect what they have.

Tie immigration quotas to land use and development. In other words if land is being protected (ie NIMBYism, greenbelts, zoning) then immigration gets cut by X number.

If you make people see the whole picture like that then they will have their hypocrisy put in front of them to contend with.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It's the same thing where people think we should ban sprawl then immediately complain about how hard it is to afford a detached home today. Like.. what do you expect if you want to effectively ban constructing new detached homes? If you want to ban sprawl that's all and good, but it has implications. 100% intensification to accommodate people is going to see big condo buildings built behind peoples houses and people aren't going to be able to afford housing types that sprawl previously made affordable.

Exactly. Limiting sprawl does have benefits, but it also has costs, the most obvious being increased house prices. We shouldn't ignore the costs just because it goes against the argument for urbanisation.

Politicians are much more willing to impose costs on future residents, because they can't vote. Putting in a green belt has no cost on the current homeowners, but the necessary increase in density to offset that does.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Tie immigration quotas to land use and development. In other words if land is being protected (ie NIMBYism, greenbelts, zoning) then immigration gets cut by X number.

If you make people see the whole picture like that then they will have their hypocrisy put in front of them to contend with.

I don't know, this sounds like it will just encourage people. "I can be a NIMBY and have fewer brown people next door? Sign me up!".

Federal meddling might be a bit much, but perhaps Ontario and BC could put in laws that override the most onerous municipal regulation. It let local politicians off the hook, they can pay lip service to NIMBYs while blaming the MLA when new housing is approved.

[ssiguy]

There are many things that Canada can do to stop our ever increasingly housing prices:

1} A COMPLETE ban on all housing purchases for non-citizens including permanent residence, TFW, and students.
2} A MAXIMUM of $500k limit for all CMHC loans.
3} A 10% sales tax on the sale of all secondary homes and 25% on 3rd or more.
4} A huge capital gains tax on all homes and monstrous ones for any secondary homes.
5} A ban of all new housing purchases beyond the primary one for any home within the same CMA/CA.
6} A cap on all HELOC loans of $200k.
7} A hefty wealth state
8} A ban on all business purchase of residential homes and of those existing, a 25% tax when sold which MUST be done within 6 months of the ban taking place.

Importantly ALL such revenue from these taxes should be spent on the construction of new subsidised/low income rental units and maintenance of current ones.

It really is going to take this kind of drastic measures to get a hold of our housing affordability crisis and gear more of our financial funds away from highly unproductive real estate towards wealth creating business expansion and innovation.

If one wants high immigration, there must be such measures in place to make sure that not a single Canadian is displaced or priced out of the market.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

8} A ban on all business purchase of residential homes and of those existing, a 25% tax when sold which MUST be done within 6 months of the ban taking place.

What's the justification for this? It seems like it would massively disincentivize renting.

[whatnext]

I was reading a review of the new book about NYC, "New York, New York, New York" (sounds like a great read) and a lot of the issues there seem to afflict Vancouver and to a lesser degree Toronto:

....Runaway real estate speculation created a “Luxury City,” with more and more of it privatized by parks “conservancies” and business improvement districts, housing more and more unaffordable, small businesses steamrollered by chains and mega-developments, and the Upper East Side reduced to “a kind of jewelry store now,” with “a third of the apartments between 49th and 70th between Fifth and Park … vacant 10 months a year, owned by shell companies and L.L.C.s.”...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/books...ll&pgtype=Homepage&section=Book%20Review

[ssiguy]

^^^ It is for businesses and a property for business should be used for precisely that.

In Vancouver there are so many numbered companies that own real estate {ie launder} that the government has absolutely no idea who actually owns the property.