News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

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:


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:


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Foreign students I would allow to stay until their course of study is complete, there is a clear and logical promise there.

How is a TFW entitled to remain indefinitely?
 
Not indefinitely, there is a term on the work permit. I'd be fine with reducing the acceptance rate of extensions.
 
Let's be honest. The reason we are getting flooded with students is because we provide them a pathway to residency. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is that we have designed a system that misdirects and misplaces their efforts. So instead of getting construction and healthcare workers we need, we're getting a ton of marketing majors who just want an easy major while they work 40 hrs per week to pay for school.

Aside from cutting the number of students, much more effort needs to be made to make sure those who are lucky enough to get here pursue skills we need. One point, I'd like to see is no more 1 yr diploma programs that qualify. Full 2 yr / 4 semester college programs as a minimum. And a list of needed subject areas. We don't need more business majors. If somebody comes here as a business major, they should know it's just for an education. No pathway to residency.
 
They don't get how it works. You can and have to be wonkish in Opposition to show you can govern. In office, you have to show empathy so that voters think you understand their priorities and issues. This video is good. But they've got a bigger comms problem.
 
but the definition of TFW is 'Temporary'
I think that aspect has been so muddied by both government policy and 'immigration consultants' who either outright lie or game the system so it makes the government look like the bad guy. Even an offer of employment should only lead to Permanent Residency if it is a sector we have a need of.
 
The Liberals are actually making gains in Housing and immigration levels will go down in the coming years. There main problem is the carbon tax, any further increases and they are certain to lose the next election.
It's the eye test, even with the rebates people only see gas prices going up.

Also, none of the clean investment tax credits has passed into law.

The climate file was supposed to be the Liberals biggest strength, now it's their biggest weakness.
 
The Liberals are actually making gains in Housing and immigration levels will go down in the coming years. There main problem is the carbon tax, any further increases and they are certain to lose the next election.
It's the eye test, even with the rebates people only see gas prices going up.

Also, none of the clean investment tax credits has passed into law.

The climate file was supposed to be the Liberals biggest strength, now it's their biggest weakness.
No, the LPC's biggest weakness is their total inaction on the cost of living and housing file.
 
No, the LPC's biggest weakness is their total inaction on the cost of living and housing file.
Inaction on housing? They have tons of agreements in place with municipalities to build fourplexes. The Bank of Canada's interest rate hikes are causing the cost of living crisis. Inflation is down to 2.8%, so they are likely to cut soon.

The carbon tax is killing the Liberals right now. There whole climate agenda is a mess.
 

Back
Top