Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-11-2024, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Canada
7,309 posts, read 9,321,218 times
Reputation: 9858

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EduardoFinatto View Post
The money already exists. There are plenty of people who could afford to build new housing under the right circumstances, but now they don’t have enough incentives to do that.

The government is also part of the problem so I wouldn’t expect it to be the solution alone. But the government could be useful by promoting the right incentives. Subsidizing taxes for new constructions in the first years could be a great incentive (we taxpayers would have to pay for that, of course). Dropping some old unnecessary ‘NIMBY’ restrictions in urban areas would also be a great incentive. Measures to increase the number of construction workers would be needed. These actions would increase the supply. To bring the demand into balance, the influx of new immigrants can be reduced, especially of those who are not coming to work.

The government can also build its own housing to accommodate people who are deeply in need, as a secondary measure. It would be a failure to rely exclusively on the government to provide housing even for middle class working people.

After a few years of measures to normalize supply and demand back to a reasonable balance, the prices would go down. It’s as simple as it sounds.

Now what’s really happening: people move in millions to the same places, the population explodes, restrictions limit the number of new constructions because people still want their neighbourhoods to look the same as 50 years ago, the prices of course skyrocket and then, how predictable, people start claiming for rent control and free housing.
The people who can afford to build new houses want to maximize their profits so they are a large part of the problem. You would need the government to force them to build houses at a lower cost. In order to do that, you're going to have to regulate prices up and down the supply chain. How are you going to do that without it being a free economy? Just as communism ran into a brick wall, so has capitalism.

Secondly, the government is the people. We, the people are the ones who are already hurting financially. So the government gets even more taxes out of the people? We actually don't have the money. We're running on fumes. The government doesn't have a money tree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2024, 10:13 AM
pdw pdw started this thread
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,674 posts, read 3,092,968 times
Reputation: 1820
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
The people who can afford to build new houses want to maximize their profits so they are a large part of the problem. You would need the government to force them to build houses at a lower cost. In order to do that, you're going to have to regulate prices up and down the supply chain. How are you going to do that without it being a free economy? Just as communism ran into a brick wall, so has capitalism.

Secondly, the government is the people. We, the people are the ones who are already hurting financially. So the government gets even more taxes out of the people? We actually don't have the money. We're running on fumes. The government doesn't have a money tree.
I know a lot of people share your view. I think we should weigh a cost/benefit scenario of the massive brain drain we’re experiencing vs raising taxes to solve the housing crisis. I’ve heard stories of almost whole graduating classes from Canadian engineering programs moving to the US to work. Even many nurses are doing this, because the cost of living is so much lower in the US. It’s an investment for long term benefit to society. We have all acknowledged on this thread that the profit incentives for the private market are not there, so how do we deal with the massive hole we’re in without federal funding? I don’t see any other way. I think Chevy has the right idea that we need to encourage development of underdeveloped regions, but I think it’s a carrot vs stick argument for how we do that. As they say, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Still that might pivot is in a more balanced direction, but I truly believe funding public housing on a large scale as we did in the past is the best solution for dealing with the problem that already exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 10:18 AM
pdw pdw started this thread
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,674 posts, read 3,092,968 times
Reputation: 1820
If there was public housing available for the middle class, I would move into a unit without a second thought. I would actually agree to a higher rent than I am paying now because over time it will not increase at the same rate of the place I’m in. I wouldn’t have to deal with the insecurity and stress of having a private landlord try and kick me out so they can raise the rent above the legal limit. I may not have a house to sell as an investment, but I would have a long term secure residence for me and my family that I could live in for as long as I want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Canada
7,309 posts, read 9,321,218 times
Reputation: 9858
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
I know a lot of people share your view. I think we should weigh a cost/benefit scenario of the massive brain drain we’re experiencing vs raising taxes to solve the housing crisis. I’ve heard stories of almost whole graduating classes from Canadian engineering programs moving to the US to work. Even many nurses are doing this, because the cost of living is so much lower in the US. It’s an investment for long term benefit to society. We have all acknowledged on this thread that the profit incentives for the private market are not there, so how do we deal with the massive hole we’re in without federal funding? I don’t see any other way. I think Chevy has the right idea that we need to encourage development of underdeveloped regions, but I think it’s a carrot vs stick argument for how we do that. As they say, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Still that might pivot is in a more balanced direction, but I truly believe funding public housing on a large scale as we did in the past is the best solution for dealing with the problem that already exists.
I'm not saying there's no theoretical benefit - I'm saying there's no money. What are you going to fund these public houses with if not higher taxes?

If you force corporations to build with lower profit margins, why would THEY stay in Canada if there's an alternative? We have already seen companies packing up their businesses and moving to countries with chances for bigger profits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 11:01 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
32,638 posts, read 48,005,355 times
Reputation: 78400
Profit margin in building houses is not huge. The reason that the cost of new housing can not come down is because the materials to build the houses and the labor to build the houses is expensive.

The guy who cuts down the trees wants to be paid a living wage. The guy who trucks the trees to the lumber mill wants to be paid a living wage, the mill worker wants to be paid a living wage. The guy who nails the boards together to build the house wants to be paid a living wage. The same for all the nails and plumbing and roofing and concrete. The people who make it want to be paid a living wage and the people who put it all together want to be paid a living wage. If you restrict their wages to peanuts to get the cost of building a house down, they won't produce the goods for cheap. They stop working and then there are no goods at all, No nails, no asphalt shingles, no nothing.

The only way to get the cost of housing sown is to figure out some way to make houses out of recycled milk cartons that are blown into shape by a machine, on site, so they don't have to be trucked in. Until something like that happens, it will continue to be really expensive to build a new house. Even the little small houses are really expensive to build. No one wants to build houses at a great financial loss to everyone involved in the process, so that is never going to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 11:31 AM
 
1,221 posts, read 494,498 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
I'm not saying there's no theoretical benefit - I'm saying there's no money. What are you going to fund these public houses with if not higher taxes?

If you force corporations to build with lower profit margins, why would THEY stay in Canada if there's an alternative? We have already seen companies packing up their businesses and moving to countries with chances for bigger profits.
That's right Netwit, this can't be done to meet the needs of the middle class without raising taxes significantly. It's insane people are even suggesting this.

Also, It's not just the cost of living that would drive a porfessional to the US. That is only part of it. Some professions simply get payed more and often pay less taxes in the US. Corporations would be even more inclined to get out of here if the government raised taxes and started telling them what to do more often. That's just not going to work.



Quote:
If there was public housing available for the middle class, I would move into a unit without a second thought. I would actually agree to a higher rent than I am paying now because over time it will not increase at the same rate of the place I’m in. I wouldn’t have to deal with the insecurity and stress of having a private landlord try and kick me out so they can raise the rent above the legal limit. I may not have a house to sell as an investment, but I would have a long term secure residence for me and my family that I could live in for as long as I want
This is not something the middle class should worry about in a healthy prosperous country. What you're describing sounds third world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 11:32 AM
 
1,221 posts, read 494,498 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke View Post
Profit margin in building houses is not huge. The reason that the cost of new housing can not come down is because the materials to build the houses and the labor to build the houses is expensive.

The guy who cuts down the trees wants to be paid a living wage. The guy who trucks the trees to the lumber mill wants to be paid a living wage, the mill worker wants to be paid a living wage. The guy who nails the boards together to build the house wants to be paid a living wage. The same for all the nails and plumbing and roofing and concrete. The people who make it want to be paid a living wage and the people who put it all together want to be paid a living wage. If you restrict their wages to peanuts to get the cost of building a house down, they won't produce the goods for cheap. They stop working and then there are no goods at all, No nails, no asphalt shingles, no nothing.
.
To add to this, in this country we actually have a shortage of people that are willing to do those jobs. The type of immigrants Canada has placed all their focus on are also not wanting those types of jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,545,978 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Canada has no housing crisis, if you want to live in Peace River, AB, or Kapuskasing, ON. If you don't, then you're sunk.

You can get a very nice 3-bedroom house in Peace River from $400,000. If you want a condo, then you go from $40K. Thing is, it's Peace River. Who the hell wants to live there?

And that's the problem with the federal government: it's not telling refugees/immigrants where they must go. They all want to live in Toronto and area, and okay, the federal government allows them to live in Toronto, and then complains because they don't all fit in Toronto. And there's the "oh, no, housing is so expensive" stuff.

The solution is simple. When immigrants come in, "You, you and, you--you're going to Peace River, Alberta. No, I don't care where any so-called relatives are; you're going to Peace River, Alberta. Your relatives are in Bramalea? Gee, that's too damn bad. Oh and you, you, and you--you're going to Kapuskasing, Ontario. Any questions?

Tell them where they are going to go in Canada; don't give them a choice. They're lucky that we Canadians let them into Canada at all; if they b*tch, moan and complain, remind them that this is our country and we make the rules, and deport them if they complain too much. That is our right as Canada and Canadians.
I understand your point, but how would this work?

Some agency would need to monitor that they don't move to certain areas.

Provinces and territories would want a say on who gets who, if any.

You're a lawyer so perhaps you can address the next issue. I see lawsuits because of the Charter, where citizens and Permanent Residents ( which I assume new immigrants are ? ) have mobility rights.

Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.


https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...any%20province.

Last edited by Natnasci; 02-11-2024 at 01:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Canada
7,309 posts, read 9,321,218 times
Reputation: 9858
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke View Post
Profit margin in building houses is not huge. The reason that the cost of new housing can not come down is because the materials to build the houses and the labor to build the houses is expensive.

The guy who cuts down the trees wants to be paid a living wage. The guy who trucks the trees to the lumber mill wants to be paid a living wage, the mill worker wants to be paid a living wage. The guy who nails the boards together to build the house wants to be paid a living wage. The same for all the nails and plumbing and roofing and concrete. The people who make it want to be paid a living wage and the people who put it all together want to be paid a living wage. If you restrict their wages to peanuts to get the cost of building a house down, they won't produce the goods for cheap. They stop working and then there are no goods at all, No nails, no asphalt shingles, no nothing.

The only way to get the cost of housing sown is to figure out some way to make houses out of recycled milk cartons that are blown into shape by a machine, on site, so they don't have to be trucked in. Until something like that happens, it will continue to be really expensive to build a new house. Even the little small houses are really expensive to build. No one wants to build houses at a great financial loss to everyone involved in the process, so that is never going to happen.

That's exactly right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Canada
7,679 posts, read 5,525,023 times
Reputation: 8817
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
If there was public housing available for the middle class, I would move into a unit without a second thought. I would actually agree to a higher rent than I am paying now because over time it will not increase at the same rate of the place I’m in. I wouldn’t have to deal with the insecurity and stress of having a private landlord try and kick me out so they can raise the rent above the legal limit. I may not have a house to sell as an investment, but I would have a long term secure residence for me and my family that I could live in for as long as I want.
*sigh* That is pie in the sky thinking.

Do the math.

There were 15.3 million households in Canada in 2021. Say 70% of them are lower or middle class. That’s 10.7 million households (homes to be built). Say it costs $100,000 to build a home on average (house or apartment) - this cost is probably a gross underestimate.

Total cost for government to build (or buy existing private housing) = 10.7 million x $100,000 = $1.1 TRILLION.

If the cost to build a home was $200,000, then the total cost would be $2.2 TRILLION.

If the cost to build a home was higher, well you do the math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top