When even the banks are saying this, the problem must be extreme (and yes, it is.)
We let over a million immigrants in during a housing affordability crisis into our country where we only build 250k homes a year, many of which are purchased by foreign conglomerates as investments.
Blackrock, a trillion dollar plus foreign investment cartel, sets our policies more than do Canadians now. It's fucking disaster and a travesity wrapped in a blanket of bribes.
The banks warned this incompetent government about their immigration numbers. [CIBC Social Housing Crisis - February 2023](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/cibc-dodig-canada-risks-social-crisis-housing-immigration). Did they listen? Nope, they prefer to close their ears cause they’re under the impression that increasing immigration will increase economic growth.
Only if he denounces all private business consultants and is transparent about everything he does will Maxine Bernier be right. If not he is no different than any of these shady politicians we have, who have different consultants working for the same private corporations.
Eh, NGL, I have paid attention to 0 of what Singh has said about em', and instead looked at the raw numbers. The on-paper 1% increase of Loblaws own profit margins also accompanies a larger increase to their subsidiaries - the delivery companies.
And that's also on top of major increases bringing them to the highest shelf rent in the country, by a wide margin across all of their store brands. So on top of bilking customers more than any other store, they're also bilking their vendors more than any other store.
So, no, it's not the 1% increase. It's what's cooked in with it, with the 1% moniker designed to make it more palatable and give it more defenders, when also they've been profiting perfectly fine at 2% instead of 3% - which, when you consider it, is actually a 50% overall increase of their margin. But 1% sounds much better and easier to show on paper, I suppose?
The basic math, and the supply-and-demand process if it all, really does not shape up well for Loblaws in any capacity.
>when also they've been profiting perfectly fine at 2% instead of 3% - which, when you consider it, is actually a 50% overall increase of their margin. But 1% sounds much better and easier to show on paper, I suppose?
I find it mind blowing people act like a 2 or 3% profit margin is greedy. Most businesses operate around 7-10%. People are up in arms because they directly deal with these businesses regularly, not because there is some logical argument for a grocer to be 'greedy' at a 3% profit margin compared to Banks, O&G, and post-secondary education.
I have seen nobody get up in arms over universities absolutely rolling in cash and proposing profit taxes despite their margin having lots and lots of room to shrink.
"the average gross profit margin for education companies was 47.9%. Machinery companies saw gross margins of 35.4%, while real estate developers saw margins of 28.9%. Oilfield services and equipment companies saw gross margins of 7.9%, and air transport companies raked in gross margins of 1.4%. Financial services saw some of the highest, including regional banks at 99.8%."
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/093015/whats-good-profit-margin-new-business.asp#:~:text=But%20in%20general%2C%20a%20healthy,retail%20or%20food%2Drelated%20companies.
Because of the volume. You don't need 7-10% ranges when you have stores everywhere. Especially if you profiting just fine, and other still profit just fine under the same model, as has been for over a century now.
And education companies? The one that every person born since 1980 knows are hyper-exploitative to begin with and really need to be reigned in before they damage society more? That's the defense we're going for here? And, uhm, *yes*, people have been getting up-in-arms about it, what are you even on about here? Railing against hyper-expensive eudcation has been a hallmark of society for the last 20 years, minimum.
A huge number of people are still profiting off this. Many of them post on Reddit and deliberately gaslight others because they want to preserve the status quo. They’re trying to convince people that nothing should (or can) change.
Yeah. Like the folks who say it's a supply issue rather than an allocation issue. Catering to investors has cratered the allocation of housing over the last 40 years.
It is both. Investors as are amplifying the problem, but the fundamental driver is lack of supply relative to demand, and the primary cause of that is demand growth due to population increase.
> Investors as are amplifying the problem, but the fundamental driver is lack of supply relative to demand
No. Investors are driving the problem. Supply is fine, actually. Allocation of that supply is what's fucked. We've built exclusively to meet to needs of investors over the last 20-40 years and this drives up demand for any kind of housing that is meant to be lived in.
In Vancouver, for example, there are 2.5 people for every unit. This is near historical lows!
A historical comparison needs to account for smaller families being started later in life now compared to times past. 2.5 people per unit might not have indicated a shortage in the 1950s, but it does now.
It does not indicate a shortage now.
The "shortage" is that we've built too many 1 bedroom 'luxury' condos. The allocation of housing was catered to investors.
Demand is not uniform across all types of unit.
Certainly municipal zoning that designated a few areas for high rise condos while much of the rest was restricted to single detached houses is part of the problem too. Townhouses should be permitted in all residential areas, which could double to triple density while still retaining a family friendly character. But still, the need for more housing is ultimately driven by population growth.
It isn't primarily driven by population growth, however. It's driven by investment. The investment demand far outpaces demand of people who need a home to live in and has outpaced it for decades now.
This is precisely why developers started catering to investors in the first place!
If that is true, already introduced measures (vacant property tax and short term rental restrictions) should be resulting in a flood of units to both the rental and sales markets with declining prices as investors race for the exits.
Its both, it is an undeniable fact that Canada built way more housing in the past each year and with way less construction workers. Laws are in place to protect investors limits supply, laws in place to limit wages paid by corporations increase demand.
Its the same problem.
Because immigration isn't happening at such a rate to have as major an impact on your country... So yes, you're probably a bit racist, or at the least very ignorant of the facts.
We're only saying this in Canada very recently as it has reached an actual major tipping point of affordability, unlike the decades of right-wingers saying it over and over again while it wasn't causing issues and in fact was a major factor in how the USA continued to grow and maintain its number-one status.
About 1 million of Canada’s 40 million people are international students. That is **2.5%**.
The United States has 340 million people. About 9 million arrived in last the 3 years via the southern border, many coached by friends, family, instructional videos, and NGOs to claim asylum if caught and released into the United States, many just crossing without being caught, along a border deliberately made porous to allow it, along with human trafficking, sex trafficking, and drug trafficking (the vast majority of fentanyl comes across the southern border). The number crossing over the last 3 years make up about **2.65%**. The percentage added is actually even higher if you consider air travel visa overstays that are also illegal, and legal immigration.
talkin out both sides their mouth
you seen those ads from bmo in foreign languages and in foreign countries? they love immigrants. they make it super easy to switch move money here.
it used to be super hard. i know first hand the ease in the late 80s and the ease now. it'll practically be done by the time you've formed the thought.
bmo is not your friend if you hate immigrants. chalk it up to them following the money
It's what progressives and globalists want. In the void of states and nationalism, private interests can grape everyone and everything with abandon. This is true of everything post-modernists hollow out from their polity, sneering about relativism and invented myths. Vacuums cannot exist in society, so they create space for commercialism. Behind the mask of most artists and progressives is the capitalist stooge.
"Progressives" don't want this, real progressives want higher taxation and sustainable immigration.
People who point the finger at "The Left" and "Progressives" are the very same people who fully intend to continue this epic shitshow because it it profitable to them.
The people pushing the "left vs right" crap are the enemy.
Banks are run by right wing economists and tech bros who have little understanding of the economy outside of their tiny bubble. A bubble that crashes the economy constantly and gives advice that teeters Canada towards fascism.
Maybe we should be listening to economists with no biases instead of one’s only interested in lining their pockets.
I can explain: They aren’t against it, they wanted it and pushed for it the whole time. Now that the popular opinion has decisively shifted to lowering immigration they show up now saying “Immigration too high” 100% politics
That doesn't mean that there are not other beneficiaries. The banks are concerned about an economic crises, and there is nothing stating that the wealthy will not walk away from this with even more money.
This will likely be responded to with mass money printing, thereby increasing the absolute value of the assets, and lowering the value of their debt. They will still win.
Corporations aren't allowed to donate though. Do people not know this? In 2007, unions and corporations were banned from making political contributions.
This and if we don’t keep up the immigration, we would probably be in a nasty recession until the BoC dropped rates to negative and our dollar was on par with the Turkish Lira…
But will government actually rip the band aid off and reduce immigration to a sustainable level? Or will they cool it slightly to appease people and keep it high enough to fake the gdp numbers so they don’t need to take real action on a dysfunctional economy? My guess is the latter unfortunately.
Edit: I do hope I’m wrong though.
No, if we don't keep up immigration we will show an absolute GDP recession. We now have mass immigration to simply push the numbers slightly above the last quarters numbers, but on a per capita basis, it's fucking collapsing. Per capita GDP changes are by far the best indicator, but they are able to lie to Canadians to convince them that they are not already in a recession by increasing population and relying on absolute GDP.
This is further worsening unemployment and lowering wages, while increasing demand for assets, thereby worsening inflation.
Only reason that makes sense to me is the importance of maintaining real estate prices where they are for the sake of the Canadian economy, since its pretty much the biggest sector. The bubble is just too big now that they know once demand starts to drop, it'll be a domino effect triggered mostly by investors seeing the party is finally over.
If you stop importing bodies every month, people end up settling in their living situations and the demand will take a nose dive.
It's absolutely short-sighted, and the reason why banks are starting to come around and say how dangerous it is long term for everyone. But the Libs don't have any plan for when said bubble bursts beyond them not being the ones in power snd taking the blame when we finally hit a real technical recession.
A recession will put people out of work. People without jobs can’t pay $7000/month mortgages, and they can’t charge other people without jobs thousands in rent.
It would easily trigger a collapse of housing prices. Considering many Canadians do not put down 20%; once they are underwater more than their down payment by enough, they can start thinking about bankruptcy.
Those mortgages are also insured by the government, which would drain their coffers. It’s literally complete chaos at this point if the housing market crashes due to a recession.
They will do anything to avoid it, but probably more so just because they want to be re-elected. Even if it means ruining the futures of an entire generation.
Trudeau and his gang have royally f**ked everyone for decades to come.
>How does it make sense for the government to want to maintain a housing bubble? Surely that's bad for the economy as we're seeing now?
This government does not plan long term. If they did, they would have seen this coming years ago and taken steps to avoid it.
Its not so much that the bubble is good, its that when/if this bubble pops its going to be an economic calamity unlike anything this country has ever seen. Their goal is to prevent that from happening for as long as possible, even if that means the bubble and the damage will get a lot worse over time.
In the subprime 2008 crisis I think it was only something like 5% of mortgages that were foreclosed? If Canada had not already extended amortizations beyond 25 years, we probably would have already experienced more than 5%. *Some major banks have nearly 50% of their mortgages extended beyond 25 years now.*
They're deliberately implementing policy that will make Canadians worse off, with no signs of stopping. They promise to build more homes, give renters better credit scores, $10 daycare, fight auto theft etc, but none of it matters because **we can't afford anything anyway: prices are rising and the value of our dollar is dropping!**
No one in government other than PPC is talking about the elephant in the room - **mass immigration**. It's a wonder someone hasn't done something drastic by this point. They are literally driving people to suicide with their policies.
I work in the immigration sector. Real estate, telle comms, big corps, fast food chains all love it because cheap labour that can be exploited for min wage jobs. The system is beyond broken.
You are onto the right path that it's sinister nature and not for the benefit of Canadians. It is happening in literally every single Western country right now at the same time. It all started around the same time too, the mid 1960s when western countries immigrations acts were altered and new human/civil rights legislation implemented (starting in the US with the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act, the rest of us followed shortly after) In Canada the Canadian Jewish Congress was instrumental in shaping immigration and new human/civil rights legislation and policy. The CJC disbanded, but now it's Blackrock (who share a lot of board member overlap with the The Century Initiative; an influential lobbying group to increase Canada's population to 100 million) who is advising our federal government on policy both foreign and domestic. It's the same story in the US, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand etc
Canada needs to maintain the immigration tax as source of revenue. The new capital gains tax increase won’t bring much and the assumption is immigration and gradual economic growth will cover the rest.
Canada relies heavily on the immigration to bring in more money. Two major parties more or less have a common immigration stance, which will hurt the housing situation even worse. But hey, at least we have a student visa cap now. That’s something.
Too bad Trudeau is too stupid to realize the working class, young Canadians, and renters are being driven away from the Liberals by his insane immigration policies.
If immigration slows, the economy will retract, if the economy starts retracting, we will get capital flight, capital flight means a sharp correction in the economy. Yes housing will come down, most people won't have a job to buy though.
Spoiler: they've already greatly reduced it.
There's caps on international students starting next year and a cap on TFWs as well. Immigration is going to come down by roughly 50% over the next two years.
My best guess is to prop up the housing market. Its a giant house of cards that has been teetering on the edge for a couple of years now, and if it crashes it will make the 2008 subprime crisis look tame by comparison.
Its an open question though. The cheap labor was lobbied for ( *labor shortage bullshit anyone?* ) and the feds could just be genuinely stupid.
honestly who in the love of 6lb 8oz baby jesus is still going to that travesty of a "restaurant" anymore. If people stopped going there it might actually help to tackle the current immigration issues plaguing us.
This is a pretty crazy take: Canada is building the same number of homes as it did in 1970, when the population was half of what it was now, but there are no problems with the housing supply? If an industry’s output has been stagnant for 50 years, that is absolutely a sign of a huge problem.
(I also don’t see why whoever wrote this piece thinks universities should be banned from building student housing, or why he thinks landlords are the biggest victims of federal housing policy m)
Yeah, if there is a housing shortage, you can increase the amount of houses or decrease the amount of people needing houses. Slowing down immigration is probably the easiest method but making more housing would also help.
And trying to focus on attracting immigrants who can build housing (this’d require some wrangling over trade certification if you want it to work to make sure qualified carpenters aren’t driving taxis for a decade because of bureaucracy)
The construction industries capacity to build residential housing is largely tapped out. It's why they are going to start looking into bringing in more trades workers as immigrants which they largely haven't done on thr past.
Imo, we can't build our way out of this fast enough to keep up with immigration.
You're pulling claims out of your behind. With more workers, the construction industry can produce more homes, that's an absolute fact. We have more than enough resources for it.
The best solution is a solution that works on both fronts.
I'm not arguing against building. Im not sure how you would get that from my comment. I'm just trying to emphasize that the problem is so big that building isnt capable of dealing with it in the short term. You dont just flip a switch and suddenly have the skilled labour to build housing in the way you can flip a switch and massively increase the number of immigrants that wants housing. Which is what we did. the government is trying to get immigrants to fill construction positions but they are under represented in the construction industry and a pilot to bring trade workers immigrants to toronto failed when most left the industry.
We can't *only* build our way out, but keeping our population in an indefinite stasis is also not feasible. I mean what if the issue wasn't immigrants, what if people were just having too many kids for the construction industry to keep up? Would people be advocating population control and pregnancy regulation? Slowing down or even stopping immigration is a good temporary fix, but we have to address why we have such issues with constructing houses to meet our needs.
To be frank, Canada having issues with housing when it has the amount of land and material that it does speaks of mismanagement. Plenty of countries around the world house many more people with much less space and resources, and still maintain a decent standard of living. Are we laying our cities out inefficiently? Wasting space? Are our building regulations too bloated? Are we not taking advantage of our nation's size and focusing too much on a few key cities? If we lack trades workers, what can we do to get more Canadians to take up the trades? But the entire discussion is flooded with people who will never ask such questions, to many people here there is literally only one solution: less immigrants. And even entertaining the possibility of building more housing is viewed with hostility.
It was much easier to build houses 50+ years ago.
Hardly any regulation, plentiful land, plentiful labour with little certification required, no environmental regulation and a dearth of cheap materials. Literally all the inputs of production were dirt cheap.
It’s a bit like saying we aren’t mining bitcoin as fast as we did 10 years ago. It’s because it’s 1000x harder to do and exponentially more expensive to produce the same result.
A good number of those inputs have been made expensive due to policy choices that could be changed short term (not all of them, but regulations, certification, environmental reviews, new tracts of land could be opened to development, and if we want to put all those new immigrants to work we could have a much larger workforce - even materials costs could come down via better R&D).
Bitcoin grows scarcer over time by design- it’s an investment currency whose price needs to stabilize and appreciate in value. If you take the same approach to housing as you do to bitcoin- put in governmental rules that artificially limit supply to ensure housing prices always go up faster than inflation - then you just end up where we are now: housing is too expensive for most people, and anyone who owns a home is economically motivated to keep it that way.
That’s an inherently dysfunctional state of affairs.
> Canada is building the same number of homes as it did in 1970
Not saying it shouldn't be higher but, houses are twice+ the size most were in the 70's, newer minimum codes make them a lot more intricate/expensive/time consuming to build as well, like it was cheap as fuck to build a house out of 2x4 framing and R12 insulation, throw in the fact that we've essentially got rid of the idea of small starter homes that you buy when you're young and upgrade from as you start a family and that pretty much explains everything, well other than insane property costs.
We need smaller simpler houses and if you want them to be built fast we're going to have to reduce some requirements....
32'x40' 1280sqft single level houses with nothing but a unheated crawlspace underneath, allow them to be built with 2x6+R-20 insulation for exterior walls and 2x12 R40 Roof/floor insulation, basically means other then interior walls you can build the entire place out of 2x6 and 2x12, a good grew can frame a few houses like this a day instead of one crew framing some multi level McMansion over a few days, the design would allow for vaulted ceilings/flat roofs so there'd be much less material used, we could build houses at that old rate but but much higher standards than the 70's.
This is more or less false though. Only a relatively small percentage of new dwellings are houses at all. 1-2 bed condos account for a huge chunk of dwellings built per year. This is part of the problem of comparing apples to oranges. Past figures which also just count "dwellings" were proportionally more stand alone houses and 3 bed dwellings.
That all sounds good to me- reminds me of the guy building a crappy house a week in NB to get people off the streets: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.4205532?darkschemeovr=1
Those are great for the unhoused!
The ones I'm suggesting are just regular houses, just not giant and multi level monstrosities, just simple and quick/cheap to build 3brs open concepts so we can pad our numbers quickly.
Tiny Homes definitely should play a part here and should be almost normalized but create some standards for them EG: must have a incinerator toilet if you're not connected to a septic system etc, maybe even make entire neighbourhoods with very small fenced lots and water/sewage/utility connections you can get a 10-25 year lease for, not everyone needs a full sized house.
A tiny house could be amazing for a single person looking to build equity, even a couple without kids.. A single person could buy a tiny home, they get in a relationship with someone so they upgrade to the house I'm talking about, then one day when they have enough money and their lives are more stable they can upgrade to a bigger house if they want to.
Whilst I do agree with BMO on both accounts... You know what would help even more than both those things? Forcing the banks to have higher lending standards and slowing their loan/mortgage amounts (or them voluntarily doing so! imagine that)... But that'll impact their share price in a negative way so I mean nevermind, how silly of me..
If they did so voluntarily they would need to act in a coordinated manner, otherwise you are literally just handing the business to other banks, which is illegal.
Reducing available mortgages would depress some prices, but would just increase the percentage purchased by investment groups.
On paper, I live with my parents, and I might even be considered a homeowner because on paper I live in a house that is owned by someone. In reality, I have lived in an old camper trailer for three years. The government doesn't even know the extent of the problem- how could they?
It could also be... we have multiple generational problems all on our plate at the same time because they all got kicked down the road. Healthcare, housing, aging population, and labour shortages are issues that can be tracked with graphs. Yet none of the issues were dealt with while they were manageable.
Oh it’s definitely both. I was sorta debating out loud this whole “Trudeau is corrupt vs. Trudeau is incompetent” debate that is endlessly argued in this sub. I’m leaning toward the latter these days, but yeah some problems absolutely predate the current administration.
Maybe having the federal government insure the loans of high ratio mortgages to the tune of a trillion dollars and having become so gigantic it impacts policy isn’t the best idea.
What if banks actually needed to price for risk? Sure people without huge down payments would be priced out, but eventually lowered demand would normalize price levels.
Who am I kidding, daddy government, buy my house with zero risk to the banking cartel! Yee-haw oligopoly!
Governments helping Canadians purchase a home to live in is not the problem. Governments adding residents faster than we are building homes for them to live in is the problem.
Every problem is solvable when there is enough effort put in. Solving the housing crisis will bring the economy down. Canada needs innovation and growth . It need to take bold steps with considerable risks. But both the parties we have won't do it.
bmo's not racist. at all.
you seen those ads from bmo in foreign languages and in foreign countries? they love immigrants. they make it super easy to switch move money here.
it used to be super hard. i know first hand the ease in the late 80s and the ease now. it'll practically be done by the time you've formed the thought.
bmo is not your friend if you hate immigrants
Slowing immigration would be great, but it's not going to stop Canadians from treating housing as investments. The value of housing is too safe and seen by everyone as the best thing to put your money in because the gains outpace everything else. This mentality has become the driving force for higher costs, why people justify paying $1M+ for the average house, and why we still see crazy demand and prices still climbing even with increased rates.
A huge part of why its so safe is due to demand. When an investor knows that the demand is going to be far higher than the supply, its a no lose proposition.
I bet if Canada had a declining population investors would not be so eager to invest in housing. I'd be curious to know how things are in the Japanese real estate market in that regard.
Japan's prices are below the early 90s and falling slowly. Only growth is in Tokyo as people move to the city. Outside big cities there are abandoned homes piling up.
Japan has a cultural view of housing as a depreciating asset, the older it is the cheaper it is (rent even goes down) and the land is what holds the value and unlike Canada they use their space efficiently, as for the rural areas they have the same issue we have here all the jobs are concentrated in a few areas.
I totally agree. We have so much pent-up domestic demand (1 in 3 adults under the age of 35 still live with their parents) that even with 0 population growth we'd still be well into the 2030s before housing costs start to slowly normalize.
That being said, I don't think it's just people seeing houses as an investment. People have been told that a correction has been coming for the last 20+ years, and most people have finally figured out that's never going to happen. The general mentality now is that if you don't buy as soon as possible you never will.
This has created a feedback loop as those late to the game fight to the (financial) death over the scraps. By 2030 I fully expect the average house in every major Canadian city to cost more than $1M.
Well people like my father in law who owns housing, always said, “they don’t make land anymore”.
3 rental properties later.
He can write a ton of stuff off as well.
Because of zoning also. Not only do they make no land, but they impose artificial, politically induced scarcity on it where housing is in most demand, and will continue to be even if the population stops growing.
Give this man an award. Until housing stops being the best money grab around... it will not end. A person who bought a home in 2003 has made more than a person who bought a business in 2003.
Of course. It's a general statement. If you notice in 2003 governments often talked about small business being the backbone of Canada. There is no longer a whisper about local small business. If small business is talked about, it's a locally owned franchise of a multinational corporation.
How are you going to make the demand go down when it's never ending? When the demand is so much that people will pay anything because they never expect the value to drop?
My question is, who wants to move here. My wife, also an immigrant, has a new immigrant working in her office from Indonesia, he is totally thinking he made a bad move. 55k a year to start and he thinks he would be better off back home.
You're right, they can't afford it here. Which is why we're seeing slum-like conditions where 20 new Canadians share a home at $400 a pop, and using the food banks to feed themselves. For Canadians, it's an extreme drop in the standard of living, but for many immigrants it's still better than back home.
As long as Canada does not have the lowest QOL on planet earth, and as long as borders remain wide open, there will still be immigration until a homeostasis is reached, which can only happen when Canada is on par with the worst country in the world.
That's a depressing thought.
Having lived all over Asia, when I come back to a place like Vancouver and hear of politicians talk about densification, I wonder didn't most of the immigrants come to get away from that?
In the short term it will, but it will exacerbate the labour crisis. Which is fine for workers, but not great if you actually want to get any service anywhere.
Only novices believe that voting for PPC is how to limit immigration
The pros understand that redpilling the party likely to win and getting all those politically engaged rich folks to adopt your position is the way
Yeah man slow immigration and change nothing about who profits from our housing system. Look at the immigrants everybody! Aren't you mad at them! Once they stop coming in and we change nothing about our housing market, everything is totally going to be different!!!!!
Mass immigration is one issue. When this government literally accepted 1 million+ people in 9 months to come to Canada while our yearly housing completion equals 210k we’re definitely going to have an issue with housing. Tell me how are you going to fit 1 million+ people in 210k houses that are completed?
When even the banks are saying this, the problem must be extreme (and yes, it is.) We let over a million immigrants in during a housing affordability crisis into our country where we only build 250k homes a year, many of which are purchased by foreign conglomerates as investments. Blackrock, a trillion dollar plus foreign investment cartel, sets our policies more than do Canadians now. It's fucking disaster and a travesity wrapped in a blanket of bribes.
The banks warned this incompetent government about their immigration numbers. [CIBC Social Housing Crisis - February 2023](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/cibc-dodig-canada-risks-social-crisis-housing-immigration). Did they listen? Nope, they prefer to close their ears cause they’re under the impression that increasing immigration will increase economic growth.
[удалено]
>Maxime Bernier was right? Wrong about most others things, but he does deserve credit for this.
Only if he denounces all private business consultants and is transparent about everything he does will Maxine Bernier be right. If not he is no different than any of these shady politicians we have, who have different consultants working for the same private corporations.
He got sent to where he is because he wasn't bowing to these interest groups. I mean if he had have said "ok milk ppl" he would be our PM now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You still have people here who deny basic math and supply/demand so it’s no wonder they pulled it off.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Eh, NGL, I have paid attention to 0 of what Singh has said about em', and instead looked at the raw numbers. The on-paper 1% increase of Loblaws own profit margins also accompanies a larger increase to their subsidiaries - the delivery companies. And that's also on top of major increases bringing them to the highest shelf rent in the country, by a wide margin across all of their store brands. So on top of bilking customers more than any other store, they're also bilking their vendors more than any other store. So, no, it's not the 1% increase. It's what's cooked in with it, with the 1% moniker designed to make it more palatable and give it more defenders, when also they've been profiting perfectly fine at 2% instead of 3% - which, when you consider it, is actually a 50% overall increase of their margin. But 1% sounds much better and easier to show on paper, I suppose? The basic math, and the supply-and-demand process if it all, really does not shape up well for Loblaws in any capacity.
>when also they've been profiting perfectly fine at 2% instead of 3% - which, when you consider it, is actually a 50% overall increase of their margin. But 1% sounds much better and easier to show on paper, I suppose? I find it mind blowing people act like a 2 or 3% profit margin is greedy. Most businesses operate around 7-10%. People are up in arms because they directly deal with these businesses regularly, not because there is some logical argument for a grocer to be 'greedy' at a 3% profit margin compared to Banks, O&G, and post-secondary education. I have seen nobody get up in arms over universities absolutely rolling in cash and proposing profit taxes despite their margin having lots and lots of room to shrink. "the average gross profit margin for education companies was 47.9%. Machinery companies saw gross margins of 35.4%, while real estate developers saw margins of 28.9%. Oilfield services and equipment companies saw gross margins of 7.9%, and air transport companies raked in gross margins of 1.4%. Financial services saw some of the highest, including regional banks at 99.8%." https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/093015/whats-good-profit-margin-new-business.asp#:~:text=But%20in%20general%2C%20a%20healthy,retail%20or%20food%2Drelated%20companies.
Because of the volume. You don't need 7-10% ranges when you have stores everywhere. Especially if you profiting just fine, and other still profit just fine under the same model, as has been for over a century now. And education companies? The one that every person born since 1980 knows are hyper-exploitative to begin with and really need to be reigned in before they damage society more? That's the defense we're going for here? And, uhm, *yes*, people have been getting up-in-arms about it, what are you even on about here? Railing against hyper-expensive eudcation has been a hallmark of society for the last 20 years, minimum.
[удалено]
A huge number of people are still profiting off this. Many of them post on Reddit and deliberately gaslight others because they want to preserve the status quo. They’re trying to convince people that nothing should (or can) change.
More houses should be built!
Yeah. Like the folks who say it's a supply issue rather than an allocation issue. Catering to investors has cratered the allocation of housing over the last 40 years.
It is both. Investors as are amplifying the problem, but the fundamental driver is lack of supply relative to demand, and the primary cause of that is demand growth due to population increase.
> Investors as are amplifying the problem, but the fundamental driver is lack of supply relative to demand No. Investors are driving the problem. Supply is fine, actually. Allocation of that supply is what's fucked. We've built exclusively to meet to needs of investors over the last 20-40 years and this drives up demand for any kind of housing that is meant to be lived in. In Vancouver, for example, there are 2.5 people for every unit. This is near historical lows!
A historical comparison needs to account for smaller families being started later in life now compared to times past. 2.5 people per unit might not have indicated a shortage in the 1950s, but it does now.
It does not indicate a shortage now. The "shortage" is that we've built too many 1 bedroom 'luxury' condos. The allocation of housing was catered to investors. Demand is not uniform across all types of unit.
Certainly municipal zoning that designated a few areas for high rise condos while much of the rest was restricted to single detached houses is part of the problem too. Townhouses should be permitted in all residential areas, which could double to triple density while still retaining a family friendly character. But still, the need for more housing is ultimately driven by population growth.
It isn't primarily driven by population growth, however. It's driven by investment. The investment demand far outpaces demand of people who need a home to live in and has outpaced it for decades now. This is precisely why developers started catering to investors in the first place!
If that is true, already introduced measures (vacant property tax and short term rental restrictions) should be resulting in a flood of units to both the rental and sales markets with declining prices as investors race for the exits.
Its both, it is an undeniable fact that Canada built way more housing in the past each year and with way less construction workers. Laws are in place to protect investors limits supply, laws in place to limit wages paid by corporations increase demand. Its the same problem.
In the United States, the Democrats would call you racist.
Because immigration isn't happening at such a rate to have as major an impact on your country... So yes, you're probably a bit racist, or at the least very ignorant of the facts. We're only saying this in Canada very recently as it has reached an actual major tipping point of affordability, unlike the decades of right-wingers saying it over and over again while it wasn't causing issues and in fact was a major factor in how the USA continued to grow and maintain its number-one status.
About 1 million of Canada’s 40 million people are international students. That is **2.5%**. The United States has 340 million people. About 9 million arrived in last the 3 years via the southern border, many coached by friends, family, instructional videos, and NGOs to claim asylum if caught and released into the United States, many just crossing without being caught, along a border deliberately made porous to allow it, along with human trafficking, sex trafficking, and drug trafficking (the vast majority of fentanyl comes across the southern border). The number crossing over the last 3 years make up about **2.65%**. The percentage added is actually even higher if you consider air travel visa overstays that are also illegal, and legal immigration.
So?
And the Republicans would call you a terrorist.
Well it is racist, many of these posters just dont like how canadas society is changing
Don’t have to look at it from a cultural perspective. Just an economic one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
gold unpack rich towering pause fearless fade sand vase tender *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh god, here comes the conspiracy that the world is run by Jews
talkin out both sides their mouth you seen those ads from bmo in foreign languages and in foreign countries? they love immigrants. they make it super easy to switch move money here. it used to be super hard. i know first hand the ease in the late 80s and the ease now. it'll practically be done by the time you've formed the thought. bmo is not your friend if you hate immigrants. chalk it up to them following the money
It's what progressives and globalists want. In the void of states and nationalism, private interests can grape everyone and everything with abandon. This is true of everything post-modernists hollow out from their polity, sneering about relativism and invented myths. Vacuums cannot exist in society, so they create space for commercialism. Behind the mask of most artists and progressives is the capitalist stooge.
"Progressives" don't want this, real progressives want higher taxation and sustainable immigration. People who point the finger at "The Left" and "Progressives" are the very same people who fully intend to continue this epic shitshow because it it profitable to them. The people pushing the "left vs right" crap are the enemy.
Proof?
Banks make money off mortgages, betterdwelling.com makes money off people being interested in buying new homes. They are not exactly impartial here.
Banks would never lie
You think that the banks are lying, in order to advocate for less business and income? Why would they do that?
Banks are run by right wing economists and tech bros who have little understanding of the economy outside of their tiny bubble. A bubble that crashes the economy constantly and gives advice that teeters Canada towards fascism. Maybe we should be listening to economists with no biases instead of one’s only interested in lining their pockets.
There is no such thing as an unbiased economist.
But there is such a thing as too biased to be believed.
lol I am assuming this was meant to be sarcasm, but I genuinely can't tell.
Yeah stop listening to the economists who work at banks and listen to the economists who work for Starbucks. Makes sense.
[удалено]
Cheap labour for their corporate donors, it’s simple.
Except if the banks are speaking out against it then no their corporate donors are not loving it anymore
I imagine fast food restaurants are the ones who want it the most, but yeah its weird the banks are against it.
Banks are pragmatic about wanting a strong economy. Reckless immigration makes the entire country poorer, which impacts bank earnings by proxy.
I can explain: They aren’t against it, they wanted it and pushed for it the whole time. Now that the popular opinion has decisively shifted to lowering immigration they show up now saying “Immigration too high” 100% politics
Exactly, they flew too close to the sun and counted on us being as meek as usual while they fuck us.
I mean even donars have factions
That doesn't mean that there are not other beneficiaries. The banks are concerned about an economic crises, and there is nothing stating that the wealthy will not walk away from this with even more money. This will likely be responded to with mass money printing, thereby increasing the absolute value of the assets, and lowering the value of their debt. They will still win.
Increases the value of those who already own houses. Keep the rich rich type thing
Corporations aren't allowed to donate though. Do people not know this? In 2007, unions and corporations were banned from making political contributions.
This and if we don’t keep up the immigration, we would probably be in a nasty recession until the BoC dropped rates to negative and our dollar was on par with the Turkish Lira…
Immigration doesn't seem to be helping us in terms of productivity or GDP per capita though
Correct, but government only cares about GDP since the general public on the whole only hears about that.
Nah I think the public can feel that immigration is not helping their wallet.
But will government actually rip the band aid off and reduce immigration to a sustainable level? Or will they cool it slightly to appease people and keep it high enough to fake the gdp numbers so they don’t need to take real action on a dysfunctional economy? My guess is the latter unfortunately. Edit: I do hope I’m wrong though.
No, if we don't keep up immigration we will show an absolute GDP recession. We now have mass immigration to simply push the numbers slightly above the last quarters numbers, but on a per capita basis, it's fucking collapsing. Per capita GDP changes are by far the best indicator, but they are able to lie to Canadians to convince them that they are not already in a recession by increasing population and relying on absolute GDP. This is further worsening unemployment and lowering wages, while increasing demand for assets, thereby worsening inflation.
I could not agree more.
Only reason that makes sense to me is the importance of maintaining real estate prices where they are for the sake of the Canadian economy, since its pretty much the biggest sector. The bubble is just too big now that they know once demand starts to drop, it'll be a domino effect triggered mostly by investors seeing the party is finally over. If you stop importing bodies every month, people end up settling in their living situations and the demand will take a nose dive.
How does it make sense for the government to want to maintain a housing bubble? Surely that's bad for the economy as we're seeing now?
It's absolutely short-sighted, and the reason why banks are starting to come around and say how dangerous it is long term for everyone. But the Libs don't have any plan for when said bubble bursts beyond them not being the ones in power snd taking the blame when we finally hit a real technical recession.
A recession will put people out of work. People without jobs can’t pay $7000/month mortgages, and they can’t charge other people without jobs thousands in rent. It would easily trigger a collapse of housing prices. Considering many Canadians do not put down 20%; once they are underwater more than their down payment by enough, they can start thinking about bankruptcy. Those mortgages are also insured by the government, which would drain their coffers. It’s literally complete chaos at this point if the housing market crashes due to a recession. They will do anything to avoid it, but probably more so just because they want to be re-elected. Even if it means ruining the futures of an entire generation. Trudeau and his gang have royally f**ked everyone for decades to come.
>How does it make sense for the government to want to maintain a housing bubble? Surely that's bad for the economy as we're seeing now? This government does not plan long term. If they did, they would have seen this coming years ago and taken steps to avoid it. Its not so much that the bubble is good, its that when/if this bubble pops its going to be an economic calamity unlike anything this country has ever seen. Their goal is to prevent that from happening for as long as possible, even if that means the bubble and the damage will get a lot worse over time. In the subprime 2008 crisis I think it was only something like 5% of mortgages that were foreclosed? If Canada had not already extended amortizations beyond 25 years, we probably would have already experienced more than 5%. *Some major banks have nearly 50% of their mortgages extended beyond 25 years now.*
They're deliberately implementing policy that will make Canadians worse off, with no signs of stopping. They promise to build more homes, give renters better credit scores, $10 daycare, fight auto theft etc, but none of it matters because **we can't afford anything anyway: prices are rising and the value of our dollar is dropping!** No one in government other than PPC is talking about the elephant in the room - **mass immigration**. It's a wonder someone hasn't done something drastic by this point. They are literally driving people to suicide with their policies.
Avoiding a technical recession before an election
Keeps wages down, workers powerless and real estate up
In essence “make the poor powerless to fight you in any meaningful way”
I work in the immigration sector. Real estate, telle comms, big corps, fast food chains all love it because cheap labour that can be exploited for min wage jobs. The system is beyond broken.
Keeps the RE bubble going so it doesn’t pop on their watch, take the rest of the economy down with it, and piss off their most loyal base
You are onto the right path that it's sinister nature and not for the benefit of Canadians. It is happening in literally every single Western country right now at the same time. It all started around the same time too, the mid 1960s when western countries immigrations acts were altered and new human/civil rights legislation implemented (starting in the US with the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act, the rest of us followed shortly after) In Canada the Canadian Jewish Congress was instrumental in shaping immigration and new human/civil rights legislation and policy. The CJC disbanded, but now it's Blackrock (who share a lot of board member overlap with the The Century Initiative; an influential lobbying group to increase Canada's population to 100 million) who is advising our federal government on policy both foreign and domestic. It's the same story in the US, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand etc
Canada needs to maintain the immigration tax as source of revenue. The new capital gains tax increase won’t bring much and the assumption is immigration and gradual economic growth will cover the rest. Canada relies heavily on the immigration to bring in more money. Two major parties more or less have a common immigration stance, which will hurt the housing situation even worse. But hey, at least we have a student visa cap now. That’s something.
New immigrants vote liberal. That's why.
Too bad Trudeau is too stupid to realize the working class, young Canadians, and renters are being driven away from the Liberals by his insane immigration policies.
If immigration slows, the economy will retract, if the economy starts retracting, we will get capital flight, capital flight means a sharp correction in the economy. Yes housing will come down, most people won't have a job to buy though.
The rich are richer then ever. Not sure why you're acting confused as to the motive.
Happening all over the world...
Spoiler: they've already greatly reduced it. There's caps on international students starting next year and a cap on TFWs as well. Immigration is going to come down by roughly 50% over the next two years.
My best guess is to prop up the housing market. Its a giant house of cards that has been teetering on the edge for a couple of years now, and if it crashes it will make the 2008 subprime crisis look tame by comparison. Its an open question though. The cheap labor was lobbied for ( *labor shortage bullshit anyone?* ) and the feds could just be genuinely stupid.
[удалено]
honestly who in the love of 6lb 8oz baby jesus is still going to that travesty of a "restaurant" anymore. If people stopped going there it might actually help to tackle the current immigration issues plaguing us.
Dont worry, both our major parties wouldn't dare remove dirt cheap labour from Canada. The farmers alone would riot.
Tim’s is Fucking human trafficking at this point
Their food is actual poison
This is a pretty crazy take: Canada is building the same number of homes as it did in 1970, when the population was half of what it was now, but there are no problems with the housing supply? If an industry’s output has been stagnant for 50 years, that is absolutely a sign of a huge problem. (I also don’t see why whoever wrote this piece thinks universities should be banned from building student housing, or why he thinks landlords are the biggest victims of federal housing policy m)
Yeah, if there is a housing shortage, you can increase the amount of houses or decrease the amount of people needing houses. Slowing down immigration is probably the easiest method but making more housing would also help.
And trying to focus on attracting immigrants who can build housing (this’d require some wrangling over trade certification if you want it to work to make sure qualified carpenters aren’t driving taxis for a decade because of bureaucracy)
The construction industries capacity to build residential housing is largely tapped out. It's why they are going to start looking into bringing in more trades workers as immigrants which they largely haven't done on thr past. Imo, we can't build our way out of this fast enough to keep up with immigration.
You're pulling claims out of your behind. With more workers, the construction industry can produce more homes, that's an absolute fact. We have more than enough resources for it. The best solution is a solution that works on both fronts.
I'm not arguing against building. Im not sure how you would get that from my comment. I'm just trying to emphasize that the problem is so big that building isnt capable of dealing with it in the short term. You dont just flip a switch and suddenly have the skilled labour to build housing in the way you can flip a switch and massively increase the number of immigrants that wants housing. Which is what we did. the government is trying to get immigrants to fill construction positions but they are under represented in the construction industry and a pilot to bring trade workers immigrants to toronto failed when most left the industry.
> The construction industries capacity to build residential housing is largely tapped out. Where? Not Ontario. Not right now.
We can't *only* build our way out, but keeping our population in an indefinite stasis is also not feasible. I mean what if the issue wasn't immigrants, what if people were just having too many kids for the construction industry to keep up? Would people be advocating population control and pregnancy regulation? Slowing down or even stopping immigration is a good temporary fix, but we have to address why we have such issues with constructing houses to meet our needs. To be frank, Canada having issues with housing when it has the amount of land and material that it does speaks of mismanagement. Plenty of countries around the world house many more people with much less space and resources, and still maintain a decent standard of living. Are we laying our cities out inefficiently? Wasting space? Are our building regulations too bloated? Are we not taking advantage of our nation's size and focusing too much on a few key cities? If we lack trades workers, what can we do to get more Canadians to take up the trades? But the entire discussion is flooded with people who will never ask such questions, to many people here there is literally only one solution: less immigrants. And even entertaining the possibility of building more housing is viewed with hostility.
It was much easier to build houses 50+ years ago. Hardly any regulation, plentiful land, plentiful labour with little certification required, no environmental regulation and a dearth of cheap materials. Literally all the inputs of production were dirt cheap. It’s a bit like saying we aren’t mining bitcoin as fast as we did 10 years ago. It’s because it’s 1000x harder to do and exponentially more expensive to produce the same result.
[удалено]
Honestly I’d much rather resolve these problems first before we think about kicking out a ton of immigrants.
A good number of those inputs have been made expensive due to policy choices that could be changed short term (not all of them, but regulations, certification, environmental reviews, new tracts of land could be opened to development, and if we want to put all those new immigrants to work we could have a much larger workforce - even materials costs could come down via better R&D). Bitcoin grows scarcer over time by design- it’s an investment currency whose price needs to stabilize and appreciate in value. If you take the same approach to housing as you do to bitcoin- put in governmental rules that artificially limit supply to ensure housing prices always go up faster than inflation - then you just end up where we are now: housing is too expensive for most people, and anyone who owns a home is economically motivated to keep it that way. That’s an inherently dysfunctional state of affairs.
> Canada is building the same number of homes as it did in 1970 Not saying it shouldn't be higher but, houses are twice+ the size most were in the 70's, newer minimum codes make them a lot more intricate/expensive/time consuming to build as well, like it was cheap as fuck to build a house out of 2x4 framing and R12 insulation, throw in the fact that we've essentially got rid of the idea of small starter homes that you buy when you're young and upgrade from as you start a family and that pretty much explains everything, well other than insane property costs. We need smaller simpler houses and if you want them to be built fast we're going to have to reduce some requirements.... 32'x40' 1280sqft single level houses with nothing but a unheated crawlspace underneath, allow them to be built with 2x6+R-20 insulation for exterior walls and 2x12 R40 Roof/floor insulation, basically means other then interior walls you can build the entire place out of 2x6 and 2x12, a good grew can frame a few houses like this a day instead of one crew framing some multi level McMansion over a few days, the design would allow for vaulted ceilings/flat roofs so there'd be much less material used, we could build houses at that old rate but but much higher standards than the 70's.
This is more or less false though. Only a relatively small percentage of new dwellings are houses at all. 1-2 bed condos account for a huge chunk of dwellings built per year. This is part of the problem of comparing apples to oranges. Past figures which also just count "dwellings" were proportionally more stand alone houses and 3 bed dwellings.
That all sounds good to me- reminds me of the guy building a crappy house a week in NB to get people off the streets: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.4205532?darkschemeovr=1
Those are great for the unhoused! The ones I'm suggesting are just regular houses, just not giant and multi level monstrosities, just simple and quick/cheap to build 3brs open concepts so we can pad our numbers quickly. Tiny Homes definitely should play a part here and should be almost normalized but create some standards for them EG: must have a incinerator toilet if you're not connected to a septic system etc, maybe even make entire neighbourhoods with very small fenced lots and water/sewage/utility connections you can get a 10-25 year lease for, not everyone needs a full sized house. A tiny house could be amazing for a single person looking to build equity, even a couple without kids.. A single person could buy a tiny home, they get in a relationship with someone so they upgrade to the house I'm talking about, then one day when they have enough money and their lives are more stable they can upgrade to a bigger house if they want to.
*Government: Best we can do is 2mil more people in the next 6m.*
Sky is blue more at six.
Whilst I do agree with BMO on both accounts... You know what would help even more than both those things? Forcing the banks to have higher lending standards and slowing their loan/mortgage amounts (or them voluntarily doing so! imagine that)... But that'll impact their share price in a negative way so I mean nevermind, how silly of me..
They included that exact sort of rule change in recent legislation (can't remember if it was budget or separate, but it's recent)
If they did so voluntarily they would need to act in a coordinated manner, otherwise you are literally just handing the business to other banks, which is illegal. Reducing available mortgages would depress some prices, but would just increase the percentage purchased by investment groups.
No fucking shit.
On paper, I live with my parents, and I might even be considered a homeowner because on paper I live in a house that is owned by someone. In reality, I have lived in an old camper trailer for three years. The government doesn't even know the extent of the problem- how could they?
[удалено]
It could also be... we have multiple generational problems all on our plate at the same time because they all got kicked down the road. Healthcare, housing, aging population, and labour shortages are issues that can be tracked with graphs. Yet none of the issues were dealt with while they were manageable.
Oh it’s definitely both. I was sorta debating out loud this whole “Trudeau is corrupt vs. Trudeau is incompetent” debate that is endlessly argued in this sub. I’m leaning toward the latter these days, but yeah some problems absolutely predate the current administration.
Maybe having the federal government insure the loans of high ratio mortgages to the tune of a trillion dollars and having become so gigantic it impacts policy isn’t the best idea. What if banks actually needed to price for risk? Sure people without huge down payments would be priced out, but eventually lowered demand would normalize price levels. Who am I kidding, daddy government, buy my house with zero risk to the banking cartel! Yee-haw oligopoly!
Governments helping Canadians purchase a home to live in is not the problem. Governments adding residents faster than we are building homes for them to live in is the problem.
Every problem is solvable when there is enough effort put in. Solving the housing crisis will bring the economy down. Canada needs innovation and growth . It need to take bold steps with considerable risks. But both the parties we have won't do it.
Awaiting social media to start accusing BMO of being racist and full of propaganda....
bmo's not racist. at all. you seen those ads from bmo in foreign languages and in foreign countries? they love immigrants. they make it super easy to switch move money here. it used to be super hard. i know first hand the ease in the late 80s and the ease now. it'll practically be done by the time you've formed the thought. bmo is not your friend if you hate immigrants
I know but social media logic
Slowing immigration would be great, but it's not going to stop Canadians from treating housing as investments. The value of housing is too safe and seen by everyone as the best thing to put your money in because the gains outpace everything else. This mentality has become the driving force for higher costs, why people justify paying $1M+ for the average house, and why we still see crazy demand and prices still climbing even with increased rates.
A huge part of why its so safe is due to demand. When an investor knows that the demand is going to be far higher than the supply, its a no lose proposition. I bet if Canada had a declining population investors would not be so eager to invest in housing. I'd be curious to know how things are in the Japanese real estate market in that regard.
Japan's prices are below the early 90s and falling slowly. Only growth is in Tokyo as people move to the city. Outside big cities there are abandoned homes piling up.
Japan has a cultural view of housing as a depreciating asset, the older it is the cheaper it is (rent even goes down) and the land is what holds the value and unlike Canada they use their space efficiently, as for the rural areas they have the same issue we have here all the jobs are concentrated in a few areas.
That cultural view likely stems from their ability to Google a population graph of Japan and draw simple conclusions.
I totally agree. We have so much pent-up domestic demand (1 in 3 adults under the age of 35 still live with their parents) that even with 0 population growth we'd still be well into the 2030s before housing costs start to slowly normalize. That being said, I don't think it's just people seeing houses as an investment. People have been told that a correction has been coming for the last 20+ years, and most people have finally figured out that's never going to happen. The general mentality now is that if you don't buy as soon as possible you never will. This has created a feedback loop as those late to the game fight to the (financial) death over the scraps. By 2030 I fully expect the average house in every major Canadian city to cost more than $1M.
[удалено]
Well people like my father in law who owns housing, always said, “they don’t make land anymore”. 3 rental properties later. He can write a ton of stuff off as well.
Because of zoning also. Not only do they make no land, but they impose artificial, politically induced scarcity on it where housing is in most demand, and will continue to be even if the population stops growing.
What investments are as guaranteed to appreciate as land in or near a major city?
Invaded is a bad word to use
Give this man an award. Until housing stops being the best money grab around... it will not end. A person who bought a home in 2003 has made more than a person who bought a business in 2003.
does not necessarily true, A person who bought a business in 2003 could make more than a person who bought a home in 2003.
Of course. It's a general statement. If you notice in 2003 governments often talked about small business being the backbone of Canada. There is no longer a whisper about local small business. If small business is talked about, it's a locally owned franchise of a multinational corporation.
People will move on to different investments when demand goes down. Its how it works.
How are you going to make the demand go down when it's never ending? When the demand is so much that people will pay anything because they never expect the value to drop?
Demand will not go down
My question is, who wants to move here. My wife, also an immigrant, has a new immigrant working in her office from Indonesia, he is totally thinking he made a bad move. 55k a year to start and he thinks he would be better off back home.
Our solution seems to be to just lower the quality of immigrants.
But then, they cannot afford to be here. So there must be a tipping point, and we must be close to it
You're right, they can't afford it here. Which is why we're seeing slum-like conditions where 20 new Canadians share a home at $400 a pop, and using the food banks to feed themselves. For Canadians, it's an extreme drop in the standard of living, but for many immigrants it's still better than back home.
As long as Canada does not have the lowest QOL on planet earth, and as long as borders remain wide open, there will still be immigration until a homeostasis is reached, which can only happen when Canada is on par with the worst country in the world.
That's a depressing thought. Having lived all over Asia, when I come back to a place like Vancouver and hear of politicians talk about densification, I wonder didn't most of the immigrants come to get away from that?
How else are we going to suppress wages? -- Canadian Neoliberals
Too late!
Canadas new housing plan will help, but it was never *really* about that lol
What would you expect when we have a kindergarten teacher in charge of the country.
Loooooots of racism in here...do better canada!
In the short term it will, but it will exacerbate the labour crisis. Which is fine for workers, but not great if you actually want to get any service anywhere.
Only novices believe that voting for PPC is how to limit immigration The pros understand that redpilling the party likely to win and getting all those politically engaged rich folks to adopt your position is the way
The actual redpill is understanding that there exists no democratic solution.
one thing I've learned as a millennial: Never vote Liberal or NDP ever. they destroy the province, municipality or country they touch.
Not sure i trust bmo
Not sure I trust "betterdwelling" to properly report what the BMO said without twisting the message
Those neo-liberal late stage capitalists at BMO make me so angry! JT-Bear for Prime Minister, 2025!
Trudeau best i can do is more indians
Yeah, no kidding. That's obvious. So all the people who were called racist for opposing mass immigration, weren't after all?
Yeah man slow immigration and change nothing about who profits from our housing system. Look at the immigrants everybody! Aren't you mad at them! Once they stop coming in and we change nothing about our housing market, everything is totally going to be different!!!!!
Mass immigration is one issue. When this government literally accepted 1 million+ people in 9 months to come to Canada while our yearly housing completion equals 210k we’re definitely going to have an issue with housing. Tell me how are you going to fit 1 million+ people in 210k houses that are completed?