Erwarten wir wirklich, dass junge Kanadier bis 2060 auf bezahlbaren Wohnraum warten werden?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-do-we-really-expect-young-canadians-to-wait-until-2060-for-affordable/
Erwarten wir wirklich, dass junge Kanadier bis 2060 auf bezahlbaren Wohnraum warten werden?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-do-we-really-expect-young-canadians-to-wait-until-2060-for-affordable/
11 Kommentare
[removed]
Whether we expect it or not, it may be unavoidable – there are no immediate solutions to structural problems. But if the numbers trend in the right direction – stagnant home prices and rising wages – I expect the psychological recovery to be quicker than the mathematical one
The article admits as much, and is largely advocating for cutting OAS payments to fund relief for young people, which I can certainly get behind
The perennial issue is simple: one person’s affordable house is another person’s low property value.
The two are unfortunately polar opposites to one another, it is zero sum. A nearly perfect negative correlation.
When prospective homebuyers win, property owners lose.
Which group has more power?
>*Do we really expect young Canadians to wait until 2060 for affordable housing?*
Yes.
Because nothing can jeopardize anyone who invested in housing in the last 50yrs, so we need to let the majority of those people die off So that the major voting base aren’t property owners, then they can do things to actually change the systems.
My father sitting on a $800k home he paid $35k and remortgaged for $75k during the divorce can’t be expected to have his equity he earned by never moving put at risk for the sake of my kids generation!
Any conversation that makes holding land more expensive, nope can’t do it!
>So the next National Housing Strategy must offer a [serious plan to compensate them](https://archive.ph/o/YpGpw/https://www.gensqueeze.ca/compensate_young_canadians), which could take many forms: Thousands in rent support for millions of young people; major reductions in tuition and student debt; faster expansion of $10-a-day child care; eliminating poverty for families with children by strengthening the Canada Child Benefit; or tax relief targeted at younger workers.
Ottawa is on track to spend more than [$17-billion annually](https://archive.ph/o/YpGpw/https://www.gensqueeze.ca/fix_oas) on Old Age Security subsidies for retired couples with six-figure incomes. Couples with incomes over $180,000 still receive nearly $18,000 in taxpayer-funded subsidies each year.
>That cannot be defended during a cost-of-living crisis hitting younger Canadians hardest.
The idea is interesting but flawed. It treats the housing crisis as something that can be solved mainly by redistributing purchasing power, rather than by changing the constraints that determine how many homes exist and where they can be built.
Most of you probably can’t see them, but the comments for this article on the Globe are full of angry boomers saying that they need the money and that young people are lazy, spending all their money on Uber Eats and travelling, etc. my favourite one is that a young couple can withdraw $200,000 from their FHSA and RRSP and has $10 a day daycare plus non-taxable CCB so they are better off than the elderly.
Or you can just be like Edmonton and build enough to keep up with demand, you’ll make some nimby’s insane with rage but rents are falling and housing prices are stable.
Slow and steady decline is the best case scenario. A lot of people online seem to only view things from the most cynical possible lens (greedy homeowners don’t want to lose the value of their home), and I’m not even going to get into the morality debate (unless someone wants to argue about the morality of self-interest, slow day at work lol). But just economically, it would be a bad thing for almost everyone in Canada to see a housing price collapse.
The Canadian housing crisis is a cumulation of decades of bad choices, we can’t unfuck it tomorrow. There’s a lot of money invested in Canadian housing, I don’t own a home but I have an investment portfolio that includes REITs like most Canadians‘ investment portfolio. The bank that lends you a mortgage is heavily invested in real estate. So on and so forth.
Investment capital always goes somewhere, and for decades we made housing the easiest thing for that capital to go, and it did. Now there’s a lot of money tied up in real estate in indirect ways you wouldn’t even think of. A housing crash =/= yay affordable housing, it would induce a massive economic crisis.
Does it suck for young Canadians? Yeah, I didn’t choose to be born in the generation that is trying to enter the post-Covid housing market. But nobody chooses when or where they’re born. We’re not going to have the housing affordability of previous generations, definitely not at a young age. There are ways the government can alleviate it on the short term. But the long-term permanent fix will take decades, and we have to accept that.
Bought my first house last year at 30… Been working a high paying job I hate for 5 years to save for the down payment. If my life took place 5 years earlier, I would have been able to buy a house after 2 years of the same job.
I have a sincere question. How do we make housing more affordable for everyone without screwing over someone like me who hasn’t reaped ANY benefits from home ownership? If my house suddenly loses 25% of its value, I’ll be upside down on my mortgage, despite having put 20% down.
Even though I’m a home owner now, I still strongly believe we need to be building more housing, particularly the missing middle homes. I just don’t want to literally lose my life’s savings.
If our government cared about us at all they would end corporate home ownership. Having real estate companies buy up all the housing and have houses sit empty or rent them back to us isn’t helping anybody. They are parasites and serve no purpose.
Many will disagree as I’ve had this battle before but the whole affordable housing issue has been mishandled a few ways.
I will take my neighborhood as an example. I live in an old neighborhood with a lot of older houses such as mine (1954). There has been a massive push for infil housing to raise the inventory thus tons of demos of older houses and new double residences on one lot builds. But all of the new housing is very highly priced which does not help first time buyers.
My small older house on a big lot with a yard, deck , garden, mature trees is valued probably about $428K, I’ve done a lot of upgrades over the years so the main issue of old houses are no issue. (Roof. furnace windows, plumbing, electrical etc)
All of the new units in the area are like $650 and up some way higher.
The big push should have been to offer big incentives to upgrade and update older houses, keeping the prices lower but not garbage houses and thus keeping a larger supply of lower priced starter homes.
Instead as soon as a house like mine gets sold it is demod and infil rebuild for much higher costs.