Interesting the recent focus on the Canadian market. FT just publiched an opinion peice last weekend on why we are not a global leader. Basically low pop density -> limited competition -> limited innovation & productivity
I recently sold my downtown Toronto condo (principle residence) after 8 years and the returns are arguably higher than the wage I've made over the same period of time after taxes (I work at one of the big 4 consulting firms, so a fairly average salary for the city).
We are now with our backs to a wall where we cannot let house prices drop, which means we cannot increase supply to quickly or risk a good chunk of the population losing a significant portion of their future buying power....that is unless wages shift.
Thing is, historically, Canada was incredibly innovative. It seems there was a culture shift somewhere in the 90s where "getting a good job" became the goal of Canadians.
We can see this echoed in education data. Canada has become the most educated nation, but is so because of an exceptionally high rate of vocational training. Canada lags well behind when it comes to research-focused education.
As seen in the link's charts, the US housing market crashed in 2006 because, after a period of innovation stagnation (Dotcom bust, 9/11), new innovation was taking hold. Investors left housing to ride that train, and thus the price declined. The people of Canada do not appear to have it in them to offer anything other than housing to investors.
I was born in the US, and lived in Canada, specifically Toronto, for a while.
And contrary Americans’ vague impressions of some snow-swept utopia…yeah, Canada is shockingly lacking in innovation.
It’s a place of US-designed and Chinese-made products, moribund government-backed private industry like Rogers and Bombardier, and a population that really did seem complacent and rather go-along get-along. People didn't seem to look past going to the cottage on the weekend, and whistling past a lot of increasingly decrepit infrastructure.
The Canadian market lacks innovation because the market doesn’t want innovation. Most Canadian businesses and startups thrive in the U.S. simply because the Canadian market is so much more risk-averse. Buyers are afraid of change and investors afraid of risk.
Wages will have a much harder time heading up unless the federal government implements a moratorium on immigration, both temporary visas (e.g. foreign students) and permanent residence permits. The only way to (equitably?) do this is by turning off the tap going forward and denying/capping new immigration applications.
Oh no, the absolute horror. Homeowners will end up having actually spent money to have somewhere to live instead of making more money just by virtue of owning a home.
Plenty of people are already living that reality, it's called renting.
Given that a lot of people's retirement wealth is largely in their home, and that they've planned and worked toward this for 40 to 50 years, this is a remarkably calloused take. I agree the current system has absurdities and needs to be changed, but rapidly disrupting the system and dismissing people's devastation with a "lol" is how you start political wars. I suspect this attitude is one of the main drivers behind the contemporay political polarization that is ruining friendships, marriages, and families. The only way we are going to be able to fix our broken system is with physical force where the victor gets to impose their beliefs on the others, or with empathy where people genuinely seek to understand the impact of things on others and work towards ideal solutions. I certainly hope the latter is what society chooses.
You're right, the snark was unnecessary, but to be 100% honest no I don't feel that bad that the people that have been willfully participating in and profiting off a system that only works by screwing other people over may lose some money when the people getting screwed over have had enough and try to change things.
Just by living in the US and participating in our modern society here I am myself in a similar situation, and I'm not exactly a political activist dedicating my life to changing the status quo, but if and when the people we're exploiting to fund our current lifestyle start fighting for a better life I'm not gonna be telling them that they need to stop and think about the effect their demands would have on our lives.
Maybe, but you are absolutely right, that “snark” is merely a thing out of frustration from people who can not buy houses, while home owners from previous generations have the audacity to lectures the new generation about their “attitude”, attitude will be the least thing to worry about in the near future from these angry young people who can not even afford rent.
If we want to fix the situation someone is eventually going to end up with the short end of the stick. I don't think it's entirely unfair that the people that have benefited for decades from the current situation end up with said short end.
I've been renting for the last 10 years, the house I'm in now is estimated to be worth $300,000. My rent payment is 2500.
2500 x 10 x 12 = coincidentally, $300,000 exactly, that I'll never see again.
So someone who owns an equivalent home for the same amount of time, if it were to suddenly have the value plummet to $0, would still come out ahead of me because they'd only be losing the equity they've put into their home. And that's still not a fair comparison, because there's almost no way it'd become utterly worthless, so they'd still be left with something to show for it even if it loses a significant percentage of its value.
Housing is a basic human need for survival, to be 100% honest I don't feel that bad that the people that have been willfully participating in a system that only works by screwing other people over may lose some money when the people getting screwed over have had enough and try to change things.
Technically yes, “screwing” the ones that screw other people definitely will even things out and fix it, and it will reduce the gap too, however, that's something no democratic government will do when that said government needs those voters and the sponsor from corps. So democracy is the problem in this issue.
A lot of people borrow against their house in the form of a HELOC. If you run into the case where people owe more than it's worth a lot of for better or worse are going to walk away and the real estate market will crash. This is where home owners have a lot of power.
I recently sold my downtown Toronto condo (principle residence) after 8 years and the returns are arguably higher than the wage I've made over the same period of time after taxes (I work at one of the big 4 consulting firms, so a fairly average salary for the city).
We are now with our backs to a wall where we cannot let house prices drop, which means we cannot increase supply to quickly or risk a good chunk of the population losing a significant portion of their future buying power....that is unless wages shift.