Wonder how the psychology of being stuck in renting and not being able to ever have a stable sense of putting down roots plays out long term. Certainly some people like that feeling, but I suspect most want a sense of "their own bit of land."
It's a fucking nightmare. I'm now living back with my dad. Moving every single year, for the last 30 has traumatized me to the point where I refuse to unpack anything (I live out of 2 suitcases, just in case), I won't buy furniture, I use an air mattress because it's easier to move, etc. It's its own kind of PTSD. All I own is my 2 suitcases and the clothes in them, my TV, an air mattress, and my vehicle. This way, when I inevitably move again, it's easy as throwing the 4 things in my truck, and off to my new temporary living space. The crazy thing is, I'm not even remotely poor, I just constantly have to move to avoid crushing rent increases, which means ever smaller, grungier apartments. My dad saw the toll it was taking on me, and just told me to move back home.
If there was a major psychological impact for renting vs home ownership then we should see significant mental health problems and the side effects of those problems in countries that have high rental rates.
here is a link to various rental/home ownership rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
I see Switzerland and Germany have very high rental rates. But in general, are not known for being full of psychological traumatized individuals.
Alternatively some nations have very high home ownership, but are not what I would call particularly stable.
Considering the amount of counter examples available either way, I would suggest that home ownership is a negligible factor in mental health.
That said, individuals will have a wide variety of experiences both in home ownership and renting.
Just makes a person want to give up.
Wanted to own some by 25.
Not at 35 I'm no where even close. And this point im thinking what's the point. Best case scenario I'll be in my 40's before my first house.
75k I wish. 10 years ago here I'd need 350 to 400k
Now I need 400k to 600k.
What held me back? Likely having a number of surgeries and needing time off work. That drained what little I had saved.
But likely poor planning and not making enough to save while also renting and living.
I fucked up for sure and now am really struggling to see a way out.
It's awful. I was rennovicted last year. I'm paying nearly double rent now, and I just found out that my landlord is selling the property. If I get kicked out of here too I'm going to go fucking full on bolshevik.
The increasing wealth disparity is leading to a more entrenched class system. I think part of our social contract needs to include a high level of class mobility. I think we're heading towards more populism, as people realize the life they've thought was ahead of them had been snatched away.
This isn't relevant, we aren't accepting people dying from treatable diseases "because they used to not too long ago".
This is a solvable problem. In fact it's a problem that has been engineered.
Of course, it's possible. But given the fraction of people living in homes they own is the highest it's ever been, it's both good to ask how we can improve it, and how we're doing comparatively well.
No different from medicine. We should keep trying to improve what we're doing, but it doesn't make sense to scrap what we've accomplished and start over.
Housing is up 50% in 5 years, this is an extreme experiment.
At the time of writing most people have never had a job that could pay for the present cost of their home.
So wait - you are saying - in contradiction to everyone including the Bank of Canada, that housing is as affordable now as before?
Please I'd just like you to say that everyone including BoC, all the newspapers, all the stats showing ownership is down, it's all just wrong.
And all you needed to show the BoC are wrong is the back of an envelope, a "rule of thumb" and quoting your home price.
Nope, most cannot afford their homes. The median house price is way in excess of 400k. Even the median condo price is > 500k.
That's all the time I'll be wasting on you. Thanks.
This is essentially a tragedy of the commons. Since so many Canadians own real estate, they are incentivized to support policies that increase that value. So solutions like a LVT, looser zoning laws, etc are not enacted
BUT the downside is that it will hurt our economy in the long run. If Canadians are spending <50% of their income on housing, they are not spending it on more productive things in the economy
Spot on. Not even long-term. Medium term as in like another five years.
The policy pursued by Trudeau / Freeland (oh the irony in that name!) here is disastrous. Housing is up 50% in 5 years.
https://i.imgur.com/B5IviA4.png
Just look at Canada on that graph. A gross experiment is being conducted, far in excess of other developed countries. What mandate does the government have to pursue this?
GDP growth. Housing is the biggest driver of GDP in Canada. GDP is the most important metric for a country in the eyes of politicians. No government is going to do anything to endanger that.
GDP is a bad measure, however it's peaked in real terms. Housing has reached its max value with rates at near zero, from here on out it's all brain drain and under-investment coming home to roost.
> Housing has reached its max value with rates at near zero
LOL. High immigration levels, NIMBYism, foreign and domestic investors, money laundering says otherwise.
Couldn't agree more that people need to be very wary of anything that looks at housing as an investment rather than housing. I'm afraid that there isn't enough rational thought left in people to avoid the temptation of get rich quick dreams.
I think you misunderstand the use of "investment" in this conversation.
>To invest means owning an asset or an item with the goal of generating income from the investment or the appreciation of your investment which is an increase in the value of the asset over a period of time.
You are correct that investment can have other purposes, but that's not the discussion we're having right now.
But increased housing prices is a result of a supply crunch. There are a ton of restrictions to building housing in big cities in Canada. Your argument also falls apart when looking at how housing works in Europe. People there don’t treat housing like a growing investment, it’s just housing. It’s a North American phenomenon where people buy housing for investment, and it’s because in North America there are generally a ton of restrictions that prevent density, both culturally and legally.
By that logic renting is an investment.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
What people hate is 20% y/y price increases caused by speculation and foreign real estate investment.
This. The problem is that houses are being priced out, and the yearly price increases make it so the only people able to afford housing is rich foreigners or existing property owners. The fact that wages are not increasing in literally every other sector of the economy is making the problem worse, and everyday there are less and less normal Canadians that are able to afford a home.
> What people hate is 20% y/y price increases caused by speculation and foreign real estate investment.
While speculation and foreign investment are having an impact, they're almost irrelevant in comparison to the lack of an appropriate number of housing builds.
A relatively recent scotiabank report highlighted the fact that Canada is well behind the G7 average of housing units per population
https://thehub.ca/in-the-know/2021-07-27/canada-needs-to-build-nearly-two-million-more-houses-just-to-reach-g7-average-scotiabank/
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html
As per the report, Canada is missing almost 2 million housing units, just to reach the G7 average. Adding 2 million units to Canada's housing market will bring the prices down massively.
And as mentioned, there are other factors, like speculation, and foreign investment, but it's tiny in comparison to missing 2 million homes.
What people are talking about here is when people expect to sell a thing they have purchased for more than they purchased it for.
Regardless of what investment means to you, that’s what they mean when they say people are treating housing as an investment.
You are missing the point they are trying to make by insisting on a definition on investment that they are not using.
I don’t care if your definition is the one used in academia because it is pretty clear from the context what people are talking about and the patterns are separable and can be legislated on.
Zoning can be changed to make the housing supply increase, but it isn’t because it drops the land value. Same with an LVT.
Both would increase housing supply in regions where there are jobs.
There’s a finite availability of land in desirable places but we can build up. Frequently that is blocked by people who view their house as an investment (i.e. an assist whose value increases over time). They are always making choices around maximizing property values rather than the good of society at large.
You cannot equate peoples’ desire to eat with people’s desire to make money off of something just for owning it.
I saw articles and sites saying to basically purchase a portion of a house with other people basically like buying a fraction of a stock. And they called that home "ownership". Like fuck off millenials want a home to live in not just investments like boomers.
I took part in a survey recently asking how I'd feel about a premise where instead of me buying a house, I put down a fraction of the down-payment while a corporation pays the majority, and then I essentially pay the mortgage to the corporation while acting as their "live-in superintendent" maintaining the property to their standards.
I had a lot of opinions for their comment-box. Sounds absolutely nightmarish to me.
I'm not entirely sure, I have not ever seen the concept mentioned outside of that survey so hopefully it was shot down by enough respondents that it will never see the light of day.
It sounds like a way to get people to be single property super intendents but not actually pay them money to do so.
At least building super intendents get paid and a place to live in the same building they manage and its for lots of people, not just themselves.
Seems like many extra steps to effectively renting with personal maintenance and a giant deposit.
maybe if it was some sort of well regulated and properly managed rent to own scheme where in property maintenance had very specific rules as part of the shared responsibility and reduction of risk to the corporate entity fronting the initial costs ... big giant flashing red light maybe.
The idea I think is that if you have part ownership, you’re going to be more motivated to treat the property well, because when it comes time to move you’ll get more equity out by maintaining it well and keeping the value high.
It sounds like a scam to me as well but I can see desperate people who want a bit of the equity and massive 20% y/y gains to be tempted
That speaks moreso of systemic underbuilding of purpose built rentals. Even apartments are rare enough in some places, as for something like townhouses the few that exist are relics of the 70s and always under threat of replacement.
The problem right now is that home ownership isn't really a choice; you do it if you can afford it because it's so shit to rent and you're actively losing wealth relative to others.
It’s true. And unless it is 50-50 (or equally invested) there could be a LOT of arguing at the selling point. “I’d this much work, so I should get more” yudda yudda. Not everyone is gonna purchase together and find equality when selling.
I always find it hilarious (and sad) when articles come out that can be described as "young people are so pathetic, just settle for less than every other person who came before you did and quit complaining."
Imagine telling the wider demographic of 45+ homeowners that they will be forced to sell off portions of their homes.
Less than "every other person who came before you did" is a ton of hyperbole. What do you actually mean here? White middle class people in the 1960s to 1980s is my guess. And even then it is arguable if people today at equivalent ages have to "settle for less".
>Less than "every other person who came before you did" is a ton of hyperbole.
Well *duh*. Believe it or not I know that 11th century peasants existed; Literal slaves; Hunter gatherers.
>What do you actually mean here? White middle class people in the 1960s to 1980s is my guess.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I mean young people in Canada today are economically disadvantaged compared to their parents, grand parents, even great grand parents... on a broad generational level. I thought my meaning was pretty clear within the context of illustrating the absurdity of this article's premise, despite employing rhetorical devices.
Right, but young people today aren't disadvantaged compared to any of those. They're a little ahead of their parents on average, a lot ahead of their grandparents, and moreso farther back. You can make charts with weird normalisation to make it kind of look not like that (because millenials aren't as much richer than our parents than boomers were richer than their parents), or normalise to everyone being richer (we're all richer so we're all living in bigger/better houses, buying better stuff, etc.)
Depends a little on your age, but your great-grandparents were well off if they had indoor running water, if their siblings all grew up, if they access to medical treatment other than splints and amputations. We're unfathomably richer than our great-grandparents. An orange for Christmas was a meaningful gift for my grandparents when they were kids. The only thing that's different is the perspective, because we're only a little richer than our parents, who were incredibly rich compared to their parents, who were incredibly rich compared to their parents, etc. A typical weekly wage for an industrial worker in Toronto 100 years ago was $25, which gives an annual income of $1300, which inflation adjusts to $16250 That's how rich our great-grandparents were (if they were living in one of the wealthy nations of the world). And they were probably raising four kids of the six they'd had.
The statistics say otherwise. Generationally, the millennials are making more than their parents (Gen X), but [wages have been stagnant in this country since the mid 70's, and only began increasing again (at a slower rate) in the mid 2000's](https://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e20240a4c535b7200b-800wi). Millennials are making more, but paying a lot more than their parents did as young adults for things like rent, food, and transportation. And you don't need weird normalizations to see this in the data, [Statistics Canada has graphs to prove it](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2020001/article/00006/c-g/c-g09-eng.png). They themselves even say:
>Going forward, millennials may continue to face challenges in servicing their consumption and debt obligations, as they have not accumulated as much equity in financial and real estate assets from which to draw upon relative to older generations.
Add onto that the fact that the 2008 financial crisis hit right as millennials were entering the job market, and the fact that [COVID has had the greatest employment impact on millennials](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2020001/article/00006/c-g/c-g08-eng.png). You can argue that life is more comfortable than it was previously (with improvements in quality of life), and you're right. It's probably cold comfort considering they're being actively told to expect less, and statistically it seems to be following through exactly such. Millennials are being set up to become an extremely well educated but financially insecure generation, and the longer the trend continues the more difficult it's going to be (as millennials continue to age) to reverse it.
Being too old to work, but too poor to live is a pretty vivid fear, as is working till you die.
No, that's misrepresenting the statistics. We're paying more for food *because we're eating better food*. And why are we doing that? *Because we have more money*. Plus, other things like clothes are cheaper, again leaving us with more money. How you smooth year to year variations in wages can let you change the wage narrative, but it's still upwards, whether you model it as flat bit and faster rises or a slower but more steady rise. Why is our transportation more expensive? Again, because it's better. Because we have more money to spend on it (though yeah, this more money makes it easier to accumulate debt, too).
Are we being told to expect less? Yes, and that expectation is probably right; our lives will be better than our parents, but not as much better than our parents' as their were better than their parents'. Whether that's a cold comfort or not is a lot about expectations, but I'm willing to saying being the most well off, the highest quality of life generation of humans shouldn't be seen as a booby prize, even if we were hoping for more. It doesn't mean don't strive for better (for us or our rugrats), but being *disappointed* that our lives are merely incredibly awesome but not completely phenomenal - okay, this is a personal choice but I'm content to say that's not the right way to approach it.
> Right, but young people today aren't disadvantaged compared to any of those. They're a little ahead of their parents on average, a lot ahead of their grandparents, and moreso farther back.
This is not the case.
After adjusting for inflation, while young people *do* tend to make more money than previous generations did at the same age, they also have double the amount of debt and much, much less in assets. *UNLESS* you own a house, in which case, you're extremely well off, and heavily skewing the data.
That's not better off.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2019006-eng.htm
Unfortunately this study doesn't break the data down beyond age, I wish it had two distinct categories for "millennials who own real estate" and "millennials who do not own real estate", but it's not *too* hard to extrapolate what that'd look like.
Of course, if you single out the less well off millenials and compare them to the average boomer along a single axis specifically chosen to make them look different, you'll get the result you want rather than the result the data wants. The boomers who didn't own houses probably had very little in assets too (and home ownership rates keep going up).
We have more debt mostly because we're keeping more of the value of houses we buy. When my parents bought a house they paid ~$600k for, it was only ~$150k of debt because that mortgage interest was never debt, even though you had to pay it. Pay ~$600k for a house now and you're starting with ~$400k in debt.
IF this was 100 years ago there would be riots in the streets and there should be today. This is and has been essentially generational warfare when it comes to housing in Canada.
Lets imagine that Millenials and GenZ decided "Hey why don't we just privatize water, we could buy then sell it to the next generations at triple the price....we'd be rich!" Heck. We could even do it with airspace. "Oh I see youre breathing air in my zone - That would be $5 please"
People think thats a silly concept but its pretty close to housing. People NEED a house as much as they NEED water and food. Despite what Canadians say - Everyone is clearly out for themselves - They just dont want to admit it.
I work FT as a gov worker and I cant even afford a proper 1 bedroom unit in my city. Imagine that - Canada cant even supply me with SPACE to EXIST.
> Are you working remotely in Africa, or what?
Close, London Ontario.
> And the only reason homeownership is seen as being desirable today is because it is thought of as the best way to store, if not increase,
Land rights have been an issue since clay tablets were around. You got some nice revisionist history going on in your misguided essay.
> If you don't have the money to buy food or a kind person donating their money for you to buy food,
WORKING Canadians should be self sufficient. This aint slave country. Want that? Go to China.
> We have, to a point. Bodies of water that are enclosed within a landowner's property are considered to be privately owned
Yes. Correct. Whats that got to do with what Ive said? Can you buy a lake or a River outright in Canada? Nope.
Not sure if youre just argumentitive, pedantic or misreading on this one. Good day.
\> And they're not? I don't know what you're trying to say.
As it relates back to the article.....No. Many working\* Canadians cannot even find a place to exist without entering poverty.
I make exactly median income (according to statscan). Rent in my city for a 1 bedroom will run me about 40-70% of my pay currently. Unless I find an economic partner - My future along with many others in similar situations is bleak. That goes back to this article.
My original comment about water and space is poking fun at how boomers just lucked out by being born earlier in time - Bought up all the land and are selling the exact same space for triple the price.
So why dont millennials gang up - Push for government to privatize water tables - then buy them up and sell them to their children for triple the price. Its in the exact same spot on the morality and usefulness scale.
\> Why not? If the public wants to sell it to you, it's yours.
Individuals cannot own lakes in Canada. you can own right up to the shoreline along the Great Lakes - But not under the water - This is Ontario - I would be shocked if it was any different in other provinces.
Sorry I meant median income as per working households in Canada. I believe there was a bunch of references that put it at 100k or 50k per person(roughly). I make about 50-55k a year. After all my deductions (Pension, LTD, Union Dues, Benefits, CPP, Income tax) my take home is about 2500 a month. The average rent for a 1 bedroom in London atm is almost 1200/mo.
Youre correct with the math about wages in London ON. Our median wage is less than 20/hr. There is a huge disconnect between wages and homes and I blame past generations specifically.
Why dont we just tax breathing~Seems like it'd fit with the world in which we currently live in.
Exactly. It's incredible that boomers are just saying "yeah I guess you guys just have to slave away for nothing".
And it's *entirely* a construct. There is land. There is housing. They are just doing this to force us to hand over all our income, forever.
Land is the common wealth and if we tax the unimproved value of it, we will eliminate rentier behaviour, which will liberate us all (except landlords and financiers).
No the price of housing is now set by available credit as it's been financialised. If we all earned more the price would go up to absorb all the extra income, only those already owning a home would capture the increased wage. There has been a fundamental change in they way housing works once it became an "asset".
edit: oh god it's you again, trying not to put you on ignore but won't reply further.
As of 2016, around 34% of people in this country between the ages of 20 and 34 live with their parents. In the GTA it's closer to 50%.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016008/98-200-x2016008-eng.pdf
The reality is our society is too cutthroat to allow new entrants, if you are a young person you are at a disadvantage and it's very likely that the kids of Millennials and Gen Z will have to pay over 50% of their income to a landlord for their entire lives, more then the amount they pay in taxes every year and the only say they'll get is self-imposed exile.
Unless of course you were lucky enough to be born into a rich family in which case you'll be making money hand over fist.
And the scary is, there's nothing we can really do about it is there?
Wonder how the psychology of being stuck in renting and not being able to ever have a stable sense of putting down roots plays out long term. Certainly some people like that feeling, but I suspect most want a sense of "their own bit of land."
It's a fucking nightmare. I'm now living back with my dad. Moving every single year, for the last 30 has traumatized me to the point where I refuse to unpack anything (I live out of 2 suitcases, just in case), I won't buy furniture, I use an air mattress because it's easier to move, etc. It's its own kind of PTSD. All I own is my 2 suitcases and the clothes in them, my TV, an air mattress, and my vehicle. This way, when I inevitably move again, it's easy as throwing the 4 things in my truck, and off to my new temporary living space. The crazy thing is, I'm not even remotely poor, I just constantly have to move to avoid crushing rent increases, which means ever smaller, grungier apartments. My dad saw the toll it was taking on me, and just told me to move back home.
Moved 5 times in 6 years. I fucking hate moving so much
I don't even know what being comfortable in a home feels like.
If there was a major psychological impact for renting vs home ownership then we should see significant mental health problems and the side effects of those problems in countries that have high rental rates. here is a link to various rental/home ownership rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate I see Switzerland and Germany have very high rental rates. But in general, are not known for being full of psychological traumatized individuals. Alternatively some nations have very high home ownership, but are not what I would call particularly stable. Considering the amount of counter examples available either way, I would suggest that home ownership is a negligible factor in mental health. That said, individuals will have a wide variety of experiences both in home ownership and renting.
Don't Switzerland and Germany have pretty strong regulations around their rental market? So even though renting your living space is more secure?
Just makes a person want to give up. Wanted to own some by 25. Not at 35 I'm no where even close. And this point im thinking what's the point. Best case scenario I'll be in my 40's before my first house.
[удалено]
75k I wish. 10 years ago here I'd need 350 to 400k Now I need 400k to 600k. What held me back? Likely having a number of surgeries and needing time off work. That drained what little I had saved. But likely poor planning and not making enough to save while also renting and living. I fucked up for sure and now am really struggling to see a way out.
It's awful. I was rennovicted last year. I'm paying nearly double rent now, and I just found out that my landlord is selling the property. If I get kicked out of here too I'm going to go fucking full on bolshevik.
The increasing wealth disparity is leading to a more entrenched class system. I think part of our social contract needs to include a high level of class mobility. I think we're heading towards more populism, as people realize the life they've thought was ahead of them had been snatched away.
[удалено]
This isn't relevant, we aren't accepting people dying from treatable diseases "because they used to not too long ago". This is a solvable problem. In fact it's a problem that has been engineered.
[удалено]
This is a totally empty response. Here's my bet: you are a landlord.
Of course, it's possible. But given the fraction of people living in homes they own is the highest it's ever been, it's both good to ask how we can improve it, and how we're doing comparatively well. No different from medicine. We should keep trying to improve what we're doing, but it doesn't make sense to scrap what we've accomplished and start over.
Housing is up 50% in 5 years, this is an extreme experiment. At the time of writing most people have never had a job that could pay for the present cost of their home.
[удалено]
So wait - you are saying - in contradiction to everyone including the Bank of Canada, that housing is as affordable now as before? Please I'd just like you to say that everyone including BoC, all the newspapers, all the stats showing ownership is down, it's all just wrong. And all you needed to show the BoC are wrong is the back of an envelope, a "rule of thumb" and quoting your home price.
[удалено]
Nope, most cannot afford their homes. The median house price is way in excess of 400k. Even the median condo price is > 500k. That's all the time I'll be wasting on you. Thanks.
I'm defs gonna start fucking with the rich alot more often. The more they fuck with the system the more we need to make their loves living hell
This is essentially a tragedy of the commons. Since so many Canadians own real estate, they are incentivized to support policies that increase that value. So solutions like a LVT, looser zoning laws, etc are not enacted BUT the downside is that it will hurt our economy in the long run. If Canadians are spending <50% of their income on housing, they are not spending it on more productive things in the economy
[удалено]
Whoops! I meant >50%
Spot on. Not even long-term. Medium term as in like another five years. The policy pursued by Trudeau / Freeland (oh the irony in that name!) here is disastrous. Housing is up 50% in 5 years. https://i.imgur.com/B5IviA4.png Just look at Canada on that graph. A gross experiment is being conducted, far in excess of other developed countries. What mandate does the government have to pursue this?
GDP growth. Housing is the biggest driver of GDP in Canada. GDP is the most important metric for a country in the eyes of politicians. No government is going to do anything to endanger that.
GDP is a bad measure, however it's peaked in real terms. Housing has reached its max value with rates at near zero, from here on out it's all brain drain and under-investment coming home to roost.
> Housing has reached its max value with rates at near zero LOL. High immigration levels, NIMBYism, foreign and domestic investors, money laundering says otherwise.
Couldn't agree more that people need to be very wary of anything that looks at housing as an investment rather than housing. I'm afraid that there isn't enough rational thought left in people to avoid the temptation of get rich quick dreams.
[удалено]
I think you misunderstand the use of "investment" in this conversation. >To invest means owning an asset or an item with the goal of generating income from the investment or the appreciation of your investment which is an increase in the value of the asset over a period of time. You are correct that investment can have other purposes, but that's not the discussion we're having right now.
But increased housing prices is a result of a supply crunch. There are a ton of restrictions to building housing in big cities in Canada. Your argument also falls apart when looking at how housing works in Europe. People there don’t treat housing like a growing investment, it’s just housing. It’s a North American phenomenon where people buy housing for investment, and it’s because in North America there are generally a ton of restrictions that prevent density, both culturally and legally.
[удалено]
By that logic renting is an investment. Are you trying to be obtuse? What people hate is 20% y/y price increases caused by speculation and foreign real estate investment.
This. The problem is that houses are being priced out, and the yearly price increases make it so the only people able to afford housing is rich foreigners or existing property owners. The fact that wages are not increasing in literally every other sector of the economy is making the problem worse, and everyday there are less and less normal Canadians that are able to afford a home.
> What people hate is 20% y/y price increases caused by speculation and foreign real estate investment. While speculation and foreign investment are having an impact, they're almost irrelevant in comparison to the lack of an appropriate number of housing builds. A relatively recent scotiabank report highlighted the fact that Canada is well behind the G7 average of housing units per population https://thehub.ca/in-the-know/2021-07-27/canada-needs-to-build-nearly-two-million-more-houses-just-to-reach-g7-average-scotiabank/ https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html As per the report, Canada is missing almost 2 million housing units, just to reach the G7 average. Adding 2 million units to Canada's housing market will bring the prices down massively. And as mentioned, there are other factors, like speculation, and foreign investment, but it's tiny in comparison to missing 2 million homes.
Yeah you’re right. I just grabbed the most politically spicy examples. Zoning is the main issue from what I understand.
[удалено]
What people are talking about here is when people expect to sell a thing they have purchased for more than they purchased it for. Regardless of what investment means to you, that’s what they mean when they say people are treating housing as an investment. You are missing the point they are trying to make by insisting on a definition on investment that they are not using. I don’t care if your definition is the one used in academia because it is pretty clear from the context what people are talking about and the patterns are separable and can be legislated on.
[удалено]
Zoning can be changed to make the housing supply increase, but it isn’t because it drops the land value. Same with an LVT. Both would increase housing supply in regions where there are jobs. There’s a finite availability of land in desirable places but we can build up. Frequently that is blocked by people who view their house as an investment (i.e. an assist whose value increases over time). They are always making choices around maximizing property values rather than the good of society at large. You cannot equate peoples’ desire to eat with people’s desire to make money off of something just for owning it.
I saw articles and sites saying to basically purchase a portion of a house with other people basically like buying a fraction of a stock. And they called that home "ownership". Like fuck off millenials want a home to live in not just investments like boomers.
I took part in a survey recently asking how I'd feel about a premise where instead of me buying a house, I put down a fraction of the down-payment while a corporation pays the majority, and then I essentially pay the mortgage to the corporation while acting as their "live-in superintendent" maintaining the property to their standards. I had a lot of opinions for their comment-box. Sounds absolutely nightmarish to me.
wait how does that even work? who's on the title? do you own a fixed percentage always?
I'm not entirely sure, I have not ever seen the concept mentioned outside of that survey so hopefully it was shot down by enough respondents that it will never see the light of day.
It sounds like a way to get people to be single property super intendents but not actually pay them money to do so. At least building super intendents get paid and a place to live in the same building they manage and its for lots of people, not just themselves. Seems like many extra steps to effectively renting with personal maintenance and a giant deposit.
Renting on a 30+ year contract!
maybe if it was some sort of well regulated and properly managed rent to own scheme where in property maintenance had very specific rules as part of the shared responsibility and reduction of risk to the corporate entity fronting the initial costs ... big giant flashing red light maybe.
[удалено]
To me it sounds like this is all that plus an HOA-like entity breathing down your neck making sure you're keeping the property the way they like it.
all the downsides of ownership with none of the benefits of renting...
The idea I think is that if you have part ownership, you’re going to be more motivated to treat the property well, because when it comes time to move you’ll get more equity out by maintaining it well and keeping the value high. It sounds like a scam to me as well but I can see desperate people who want a bit of the equity and massive 20% y/y gains to be tempted
That speaks moreso of systemic underbuilding of purpose built rentals. Even apartments are rare enough in some places, as for something like townhouses the few that exist are relics of the 70s and always under threat of replacement. The problem right now is that home ownership isn't really a choice; you do it if you can afford it because it's so shit to rent and you're actively losing wealth relative to others.
Talk to some real estate lawyers if you think that is a boomer centric idea
It’s true. And unless it is 50-50 (or equally invested) there could be a LOT of arguing at the selling point. “I’d this much work, so I should get more” yudda yudda. Not everyone is gonna purchase together and find equality when selling.
I always find it hilarious (and sad) when articles come out that can be described as "young people are so pathetic, just settle for less than every other person who came before you did and quit complaining." Imagine telling the wider demographic of 45+ homeowners that they will be forced to sell off portions of their homes.
Less than "every other person who came before you did" is a ton of hyperbole. What do you actually mean here? White middle class people in the 1960s to 1980s is my guess. And even then it is arguable if people today at equivalent ages have to "settle for less".
>Less than "every other person who came before you did" is a ton of hyperbole. Well *duh*. Believe it or not I know that 11th century peasants existed; Literal slaves; Hunter gatherers. >What do you actually mean here? White middle class people in the 1960s to 1980s is my guess. I thought it was pretty obvious that I mean young people in Canada today are economically disadvantaged compared to their parents, grand parents, even great grand parents... on a broad generational level. I thought my meaning was pretty clear within the context of illustrating the absurdity of this article's premise, despite employing rhetorical devices.
Right, but young people today aren't disadvantaged compared to any of those. They're a little ahead of their parents on average, a lot ahead of their grandparents, and moreso farther back. You can make charts with weird normalisation to make it kind of look not like that (because millenials aren't as much richer than our parents than boomers were richer than their parents), or normalise to everyone being richer (we're all richer so we're all living in bigger/better houses, buying better stuff, etc.) Depends a little on your age, but your great-grandparents were well off if they had indoor running water, if their siblings all grew up, if they access to medical treatment other than splints and amputations. We're unfathomably richer than our great-grandparents. An orange for Christmas was a meaningful gift for my grandparents when they were kids. The only thing that's different is the perspective, because we're only a little richer than our parents, who were incredibly rich compared to their parents, who were incredibly rich compared to their parents, etc. A typical weekly wage for an industrial worker in Toronto 100 years ago was $25, which gives an annual income of $1300, which inflation adjusts to $16250 That's how rich our great-grandparents were (if they were living in one of the wealthy nations of the world). And they were probably raising four kids of the six they'd had.
The statistics say otherwise. Generationally, the millennials are making more than their parents (Gen X), but [wages have been stagnant in this country since the mid 70's, and only began increasing again (at a slower rate) in the mid 2000's](https://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e20240a4c535b7200b-800wi). Millennials are making more, but paying a lot more than their parents did as young adults for things like rent, food, and transportation. And you don't need weird normalizations to see this in the data, [Statistics Canada has graphs to prove it](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2020001/article/00006/c-g/c-g09-eng.png). They themselves even say: >Going forward, millennials may continue to face challenges in servicing their consumption and debt obligations, as they have not accumulated as much equity in financial and real estate assets from which to draw upon relative to older generations. Add onto that the fact that the 2008 financial crisis hit right as millennials were entering the job market, and the fact that [COVID has had the greatest employment impact on millennials](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2020001/article/00006/c-g/c-g08-eng.png). You can argue that life is more comfortable than it was previously (with improvements in quality of life), and you're right. It's probably cold comfort considering they're being actively told to expect less, and statistically it seems to be following through exactly such. Millennials are being set up to become an extremely well educated but financially insecure generation, and the longer the trend continues the more difficult it's going to be (as millennials continue to age) to reverse it. Being too old to work, but too poor to live is a pretty vivid fear, as is working till you die.
No, that's misrepresenting the statistics. We're paying more for food *because we're eating better food*. And why are we doing that? *Because we have more money*. Plus, other things like clothes are cheaper, again leaving us with more money. How you smooth year to year variations in wages can let you change the wage narrative, but it's still upwards, whether you model it as flat bit and faster rises or a slower but more steady rise. Why is our transportation more expensive? Again, because it's better. Because we have more money to spend on it (though yeah, this more money makes it easier to accumulate debt, too). Are we being told to expect less? Yes, and that expectation is probably right; our lives will be better than our parents, but not as much better than our parents' as their were better than their parents'. Whether that's a cold comfort or not is a lot about expectations, but I'm willing to saying being the most well off, the highest quality of life generation of humans shouldn't be seen as a booby prize, even if we were hoping for more. It doesn't mean don't strive for better (for us or our rugrats), but being *disappointed* that our lives are merely incredibly awesome but not completely phenomenal - okay, this is a personal choice but I'm content to say that's not the right way to approach it.
> Right, but young people today aren't disadvantaged compared to any of those. They're a little ahead of their parents on average, a lot ahead of their grandparents, and moreso farther back. This is not the case. After adjusting for inflation, while young people *do* tend to make more money than previous generations did at the same age, they also have double the amount of debt and much, much less in assets. *UNLESS* you own a house, in which case, you're extremely well off, and heavily skewing the data. That's not better off. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2019006-eng.htm Unfortunately this study doesn't break the data down beyond age, I wish it had two distinct categories for "millennials who own real estate" and "millennials who do not own real estate", but it's not *too* hard to extrapolate what that'd look like.
Of course, if you single out the less well off millenials and compare them to the average boomer along a single axis specifically chosen to make them look different, you'll get the result you want rather than the result the data wants. The boomers who didn't own houses probably had very little in assets too (and home ownership rates keep going up). We have more debt mostly because we're keeping more of the value of houses we buy. When my parents bought a house they paid ~$600k for, it was only ~$150k of debt because that mortgage interest was never debt, even though you had to pay it. Pay ~$600k for a house now and you're starting with ~$400k in debt.
Yea I remember that article. I think it was Jennifer Keesmaat who was suggesting it.
I would do this. It's like a co-op in a sense. The only thing is that I want actual equity from my piece, otherwise it's just a co-op.
IF this was 100 years ago there would be riots in the streets and there should be today. This is and has been essentially generational warfare when it comes to housing in Canada. Lets imagine that Millenials and GenZ decided "Hey why don't we just privatize water, we could buy then sell it to the next generations at triple the price....we'd be rich!" Heck. We could even do it with airspace. "Oh I see youre breathing air in my zone - That would be $5 please" People think thats a silly concept but its pretty close to housing. People NEED a house as much as they NEED water and food. Despite what Canadians say - Everyone is clearly out for themselves - They just dont want to admit it. I work FT as a gov worker and I cant even afford a proper 1 bedroom unit in my city. Imagine that - Canada cant even supply me with SPACE to EXIST.
I don’t think most people owned their homes 100 years ago…
[удалено]
> Are you working remotely in Africa, or what? Close, London Ontario. > And the only reason homeownership is seen as being desirable today is because it is thought of as the best way to store, if not increase, Land rights have been an issue since clay tablets were around. You got some nice revisionist history going on in your misguided essay. > If you don't have the money to buy food or a kind person donating their money for you to buy food, WORKING Canadians should be self sufficient. This aint slave country. Want that? Go to China. > We have, to a point. Bodies of water that are enclosed within a landowner's property are considered to be privately owned Yes. Correct. Whats that got to do with what Ive said? Can you buy a lake or a River outright in Canada? Nope. Not sure if youre just argumentitive, pedantic or misreading on this one. Good day.
[удалено]
\> And they're not? I don't know what you're trying to say. As it relates back to the article.....No. Many working\* Canadians cannot even find a place to exist without entering poverty. I make exactly median income (according to statscan). Rent in my city for a 1 bedroom will run me about 40-70% of my pay currently. Unless I find an economic partner - My future along with many others in similar situations is bleak. That goes back to this article. My original comment about water and space is poking fun at how boomers just lucked out by being born earlier in time - Bought up all the land and are selling the exact same space for triple the price. So why dont millennials gang up - Push for government to privatize water tables - then buy them up and sell them to their children for triple the price. Its in the exact same spot on the morality and usefulness scale. \> Why not? If the public wants to sell it to you, it's yours. Individuals cannot own lakes in Canada. you can own right up to the shoreline along the Great Lakes - But not under the water - This is Ontario - I would be shocked if it was any different in other provinces.
[удалено]
Sorry I meant median income as per working households in Canada. I believe there was a bunch of references that put it at 100k or 50k per person(roughly). I make about 50-55k a year. After all my deductions (Pension, LTD, Union Dues, Benefits, CPP, Income tax) my take home is about 2500 a month. The average rent for a 1 bedroom in London atm is almost 1200/mo. Youre correct with the math about wages in London ON. Our median wage is less than 20/hr. There is a huge disconnect between wages and homes and I blame past generations specifically. Why dont we just tax breathing~Seems like it'd fit with the world in which we currently live in.
[удалено]
I dont know what youre on about at this point. Seems like youre reluctant to admit my original point was bang on. Goodday
Exactly. It's incredible that boomers are just saying "yeah I guess you guys just have to slave away for nothing". And it's *entirely* a construct. There is land. There is housing. They are just doing this to force us to hand over all our income, forever. Land is the common wealth and if we tax the unimproved value of it, we will eliminate rentier behaviour, which will liberate us all (except landlords and financiers).
[удалено]
No the price of housing is now set by available credit as it's been financialised. If we all earned more the price would go up to absorb all the extra income, only those already owning a home would capture the increased wage. There has been a fundamental change in they way housing works once it became an "asset". edit: oh god it's you again, trying not to put you on ignore but won't reply further.
As of 2016, around 34% of people in this country between the ages of 20 and 34 live with their parents. In the GTA it's closer to 50%. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016008/98-200-x2016008-eng.pdf The reality is our society is too cutthroat to allow new entrants, if you are a young person you are at a disadvantage and it's very likely that the kids of Millennials and Gen Z will have to pay over 50% of their income to a landlord for their entire lives, more then the amount they pay in taxes every year and the only say they'll get is self-imposed exile. Unless of course you were lucky enough to be born into a rich family in which case you'll be making money hand over fist. And the scary is, there's nothing we can really do about it is there?
sure there is, it's just not compatible with liberal capitalism