[kEiThZ]

I largely agree with most of what you say but there is much debate on this part. Climate (temperature, rainfall, etc.) are only part of it; suitable soil is the other part. Warmer temperatures might expand the crop range for places like the Ontario Clay Belt or the Peace Valley areas, but you're not going to turn the Shield or Boreal areas into significant agricultural zones. What limited soil exists is far too acidic except in small pockets. Even now, parts of the Palliser's Triangle in the prairies dances on the limits of being arable.

Agreed. There's debate on how much agriculture can expand. But unlike some places in the world, we're not really at risk of being unable to feed ourselves. There's a long list of countries ahead of us on that list.

 

[picard102]

Weird. It's almost like you don't understand statistics and why people don't see that as a huge risk. Half of bankruptcies being medical doesn't mean that half of all people who move to the US, or even half of all people in the US end their life bankrupt. Go ahead, calculate the actual probability of an individual experiencing bankruptcy in the US and then adjust for income level (just Canadian immigrants to the US have higher than average wages).

Maybe let the American Public Journal of Health know that they are wrong that medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class. Im sure they’d love to have your expertise.

 

[kEiThZ]

Maybe let the American Public Journal of Health know that they are wrong that medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class. Im sure they’d love to have your expertise.

Did the American Public Journal of Health say "medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class" or are you editorializing? Please link the exact article where this was said. I would genuinely like to read this.

And as already discussed here, somebody who is likely to move is a bit more than average.... Are you suggesting that all the folks who leave are incapable of understanding self-interest?

 

[Brands]

 

[kEiThZ]

Great video. Won't do squat to really change opinions. At the end of the day, there's only one number that matters to most voters. That's what's left in the bank at the end of the month after every they've paid for rent, utilities, food, gas, etc.

Just remember, Canadians don't vote in new governments. They vote out stale ones. The election question is going to be, "Are you better off than 2015?". And for a lot of people the answer will be, "No.". Or at least their perception of the situation.

The LPC can improve things. They've decided not to. They kind of sealed their fate when they decided on tepid immigration cuts over 3 years.

 

[kEiThZ]

Maybe let the American Public Journal of Health know that they are wrong that medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class. Im sure they’d love to have your expertise.

Did the American Public Journal of Health say "medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class" or are you editorializing? Please link the exact article where this was said. I would genuinely like to read this.

Still waiting for that link.

 

[kEiThZ]

The dream of Canadian homeownership is dying. Here's how to revive it - The Hub

Governments cannot afford to wait for new supply to come onto the market to address the dying dream of homeownership.

thehub.ca

 

[Northern Light]

The dream of Canadian homeownership is dying. Here's how to revive it - The Hub

Governments cannot afford to wait for new supply to come onto the market to address the dying dream of homeownership.

thehub.ca

Hmm, I think the piece starts off well enough............

But it suggests wiping out rental accommodation for thousands in favour of single-family home ownership. I can't agree to that, unless those renters are being removed from the country or purpose-built housing for them is being delivered.

As written the piece advocates for increased homelessness and extreme poverty and higher rents. I know Mike and I don't believe he meant to suggest this, or that a detailed paper of his would; but an edited column leaves that impression.

I'm also disinclined to support 30 and 35 year amortizations. In such scenarios, you'll actually pay the bank three times over for your property.

Finally, I would say, the suggestion of incentivizing through lower capital gains tax, returning a property from lower-income needs to higher income needs is not only bad policy but terrible politics.

If you're going to do that, instead of using incentives you use legal fiat.

Outlaw short-term rentals (Air bnb etc) entirely; apply a higher capital gains rate to any property renting any SFH to 3 or more renters. (ie. more than one per floor). No giveaways to those who have engaged in exploitive behavior, just penalties. Change now, or else.

 

[kEiThZ]

As written the piece advocates for increased homelessness and extreme poverty and higher rents.

As they explain in the article, to avoid this the government has to make steep cuts to student immigration so that demand is cut to match this reduction in rental supply.

I'm also disinclined to support 30 and 35 year amortizations. In such scenarios, you'll actually pay the bank three times over for your property.

As they explained in the article, this is the only way to put young people in a position where they can compete with investors and older homeowners with capital. And they point out that longer amortizations should be reserved exclusively for the young who will see their incomes rising (which will allow them to pay down in the future).

I would say, the suggestion of incentivizing through lower capital gains tax, returning a property from lower-income needs to higher income needs is not only bad policy but terrible politics.

At they point out, this has to be a one time thing and it's mostly about creating liquidity in the market by incentivizing student slumlords to sell their homes to buyers who actually want to live in the homes as their primary residence. That's not a policy that has to endure beyond the demand shock being implemented.

Outlaw short-term rentals (Air bnb etc) entirely; apply a higher capital gains rate to any property renting any SFH to 3 or more renters. (ie. more than one per floor). No giveaways to those who have engaged in exploitive behavior, just penalties. Change now, or else.

These are all band aid solutions. And as they point out, none of these other ideas act in a timeframe relevant to young people looking at the crisis as acute or the party in power looking at a collapse in support. Moreover, who is going to even enforce rules like different cap gains rates based on number of renters? We barely enforce some rules against flippers now and every neighbourhood beside a college or university is becoming a slum with 10+ students in a house.

This viewpoint is fundamentally part of the problem. Older people who are secure in their homes still think this is a policy problem to finesse. Meanwhile, young people literally see this crisis as a threat to their well-being. We' ve veered so far off the road, that the only thing that will work now, is a sharp course correction, with a snap of the steering wheel. Not some tweaking that might deliver results 15-20 years from now.

 

[Northern Light]

As they explain in the article, to avoid this the government has to make steep cuts to student immigration so that demand is cut to match this reduction in rental supply.

The reduction in foreign student is absolutely correct, but it has to greater than any reduction in rental supply, significantly so.

As they explained in the article, this is the only way to put young people in a position where they can compete with investors and older homeowners with capital. And they point out that longer amortizations should be reserved exclusively for the young who will see their incomes rising (which will allow them to pay down in the future).

You can raise their incomes and legislatively push most investors out, as I've explained.

These are better tools to reach the same goal.

At they point out, this has to be a one time thing and it's mostly about creating liquidity in the market by incentivizing student slumlords to sell their homes to buyers who actually want to live in the homes as their primary residence. That's not a policy that has to endure beyond the demand shock being implemented.

Again, I'm in favour of slashing the number of foreign students and TFWs so deeply that this will occur to a great degree w/o any incentives, particularly for housing that is operating outside the current legal framework. If you drop rental demand by up to 40%,in the GTA, those slumlords will see comparable losses in rent; meanwhile, wage suppression comes off, with extreme labour shortages driving both wage growth and productivity investment.

No need to reward those who created or exploited the problem.

These are all band aid solutions. And as they point out, none of these other ideas act in a timeframe relevant to young people looking at the crisis as acute or the party in power looking at a collapse in support.

We can outlaw short term rental tomorrow, and free up thousands of units in the GTA alone.

TFWs can see their permission to work here revoked, for 'public policy considerations'.

There's a page devoted to that here:

Revocation of work permit due to public policy considerations - Canada.ca

International Mobility Program: Authorization to work without a work permit

www.canada.ca

We could oust 500,000 in 12 months, the majority of those living in Toronto/Vancouver; and have them free up well over 100,000 units of housing.

That would still leave us with more double the number of TFWs we had in the year 2000:

Opinion: The worrying expansion of Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Allowing the number of temporary foreign workers to rise to an astounding 777,000 has contributed to Canada’s growing housing crisis.

calgaryherald.com

Moreover, who is going to even enforce rules like different cap gains rates based on number of renters? We barely enforce some rules against flippers now and every neighbourhood beside a college or university is becoming a slum with 10+ students in a house.

Fair, I agree that would be cumbersome.

This viewpoint is fundamentally part of the problem. Older people who are secure in their homes still think this is a policy problem to finesse.

I'm a renter, middle-aged, my money in stocks/mutual funds and the FX market. I've considered getting into the ownership space, but when I crunch the numbers, I don't want shift over 1/2 my portfolio into one place (the house/condo); which I would have to in order to get somewhere comparable or better than what I have as a renter.

There is no question, of course, the market is out of whack, but simply don't agree that imposing more debt on the young is the solution, I would rather de-value the asset class.

Meanwhile, young people literally see this crisis as a threat to their well-being. We' ve veered so far off the road, that the only thing that will work now, is a sharp course correction, with a snap of the steering wheel. Not some tweaking that might deliver results 15-20 years from now.

On this we agree, just as we do the need to curtail, significantly, foreign students and TFWs; we disagree on some of the other policy choices.

 

[kEiThZ]

We can outlaw short term rental tomorrow, and free up thousands of units in the GTA alone.

Toronto already imposed severe restrictions on Airbnb. Go look up how that's going with enforcement.

We could oust 500,000 in 12 months, the majority of those living in Toronto/Vancouver; and have them free up well over 100,000 units of housing.

That would still leave us with more double the number of TFWs we had in the year 2000:

We could do this. But you know we won't. Getting rid of half a million TFWs would be massively disruptive to the economy. More so than getting rid of students. And the TFWs tend to be way more distributed than students, all clustered in high demand urban and suburban areas near their campuses.

simply don't agree that imposing more debt on the young is the solution, I would rather de-value the asset class.

Again, how likely is this to happen? And what government would willingly drive a substantial devaluation?

we disagree on some of the other policy choices.

I don't doubt your sincerity. I do question your professed claim to pragmatism. You seem to prefer (and would hold out for) ideal policy that virtually no elected government would attempt, and would deliver results only if implemented in their entirety. Otherwise, we are stuck bumbling along, which is the problem. Advocates like Mike Moffat are actually pragmatic in that they try to craft solutions that a government down in the polls could implement tomorrow and get results. They would not be as successful as say cancelling a half million TFW visas. But they can be implemented and start delivering results immediately. Very easy for the feds to simply issue fewer student visas for September 2024.

 

[afransen]

TFWs can see their permission to work here revoked, for 'public policy considerations'.

There's a page devoted to that here:

You'd have to tread lightly here. This would be wildly unpopular with immigrant communities (many TFWs are family of citizens/voters) and employers who would be suddenly left in the lurch.

These TFWs are people too, they need to be treated with empathy and respect.

 

[afransen]

We could do this. But you know we won't. Getting rid of half a million TFWs would be massively disruptive to the economy. More so than getting rid of students. And the TFWs tend to be way more distributed than students, all clustered in high demand urban and suburban areas near their campuses.

Agreed. Getting rid of half a million students would also be disruptive, but narrowly focused on the education sector, which will in all likelihood need to be bailed out by government. Honestly, the current problem was caused by the education sector, it is somewhat appropriate that this is where the pain is felt. The bubble needs to burst.

 

[Northern Light]

You'd have to tread lightly here. This would be wildly unpopular with immigrant communities (many TFWs are family of citizens/voters) and employers who would be suddenly left in the lurch.

These TFWs are people too, they need to be treated with empathy and respect.

I'm all providing reasonable notice; but the definition of TFW is 'Temporary' ; you know you don't get to stay when you sign up.

180 days notice seems amply fair.

To be sure, it has its political risks, but I would argue the risks of doing nothing/too little are far greater; and that cracking down on TFWs is now popular among immigrant communities in polling data.

I suspect the greater political risk is those who are highly leveraged in real estate, and may see their assets depreciate to the point of putting them 'under water'. But that's a risk I would support taking.

 

[afransen]

I think it's a lot more politically feasible to drastically reduce the issuance of new visas/TFW applications than to expel people who are already here. Even making it much more difficult to come here will be unpopular with immigrant communities.