this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
48 points (96.2% liked)

Canada

7218 readers
340 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

And this isn't just Poilevre, all three parties do the same shit. These people don't care about the average Canadian just what makes them look good in the moment.

Yup. And none of them offer any solutions, like limiting how many housing units any single entity can own.

Rampant unfettered capitalism has bought and paid for damn near every politician and we pay for it in the end ... fuck 'em all.

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

limiting how many housing units any single entity can own.

This would obviously make it cheaper to buy a home, but what would the impact be to the rental market?

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Two ways:

  • It'd stop landlords from hoarding housing. A large part of the issue is that we have a newly-minted class of investor-dudebro that's snapping up housing and redlining rent to maximize profit.
  • Because people could (hopefully) buy into the market instead of renting, it'd minimize the number of people in the rental market out of necessity instead of choice.

I'm in the latter camp: would love to buy, but got kicked out of the market via divorce and I can't see a path back in ever.

You're correct that it might see a net-negative number of available rentals, but that's a solveable problem (via purpose-built rentals and public housing).

Both solutions, though, require government intervention, curtailing of the accumulation of wealth, and deliberate policy decisions. Both Team Red and Team Blue are allergic to stuff like that.

[–] cloudgard@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know this isn’t a popular thought in some circles, but reigning in immigration until the housing stock has recovered is a vital part of the solution going forward.

[–] idspispopd@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The trouble is our current demographics mean that reducing immigration would have massive downsides to the economy too.

There are just too many people retiring (now and over the next decade). Without immigration to have a large enough workforce to support the people retiring, the economy will contract. Contracting economies are terrible for citizens and their countries.

The on top of that, the people retiring have a proportionally large amount of wealth. That will cause a lot of demand on our economy. If we do not have equally high immigration to increase the supply of our economy, inflation will go very high to balance supply and demand by decreasing the value of retirees savings.

Not an easy problem to deal with, big tradeoffs every way. But compared to other countries we are better situated because we can avoid the worst tradeoffs by using immigration to solve this problem. If we can figure out how to significantly increase the amount and density of our housing, Canada will be in a great position globally.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)