3 ms·

> So. The narrative here in Canada has shifted to blaming immigration for housing woes. While there might be something to it, it smells suspiciously like shifti

> So. The narrative here in Canada has shifted to blaming immigration for housing woes. While there might be something to it, it smells suspiciously like shifting the blame away from monetary/fiscal/legislative policy. There are multiple things that need to look at, but we've had similar policies for decades on most other fronts, but the inflection point in prices started around 2015 which is coïncidentally when immigrations numbers—especially foreign student visa—kicked into a higher gear. Mike Moffatt has done a lot of interesting research on this that's worth checking out. * https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Moffatt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Moffatt Good discussion on TVO from April: * https://www.tvo.org/video/is-canada-doing-immigration-wrong https://www.tvo.org/video/is-canada-doing-immigration-wrong > But the provinces (esp Ontario and BC) have failed to accommodate the immigration rates by building housing and densifying. If provinces are only able to build at a rate of X units per year, why are we bringing in (e.g.) 2X the number of people? Yes, we should be building more units, but one of the factors in determining how many folks to bring in is being able to house them. If we can build only build X units in 2023 then we should only bring in X. If we get to X+Y units in 2024, then that's how many people can be brought in. You don't allow in X+Y (or 2X) people and hope that the units will magically appear. There is no wand that can be waved to suddenly get more framers, plumbers, electricians, inspectors, urban planner, and capital. If folks are told "in year 202X we are planning to bring in X people", they can plan for it: but that's not what is happening. Right now it's "here are X people, deal with it, it's your responsibility".

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
If provinces are only able to build at a rate of X units per year, why are we bringing in (e.g.) 2X the number of people But this was my point. Because the health/survival of the Canadian economies requires that rate of immigration, that's what we do. But its on the provinces, not the feds, to manage housing & municipal issues. But there's a deep conflict of interest about how this is managed. Too many voters, real estate agents, developers, and contractors see benefit from rising housing prices, donors and voters for both parties. What do you think would happen at the ballot boxes if a provincial government started building mass tracts of rental housing -- like governments did in the 50s in the post-war baby boom when we last had a serious housing crisis? Housing prices and rents would plummet, and landowners, developers, and upper middle class homeowners would be coming after the party in power with pitchforks. Likewise, if immigration were to be throttled tomorrow, annual GDP growth would flatline and we'd be in recession and labour shortage territory. And the gov't that did this would also be punished. When I see pundits on the TV about real estate prices: it's almost always some joker of a real estate agent or mortgage broker, not a real economist. It's like asking a wolf why the flock of sheep is thinning out. Picking 2015 as an inflection point seems ridiculously partisan. I'm 50 next year. I've lived through both Conservative and Liberal governments. They've both made the same mistakes on this file, and they both suck. Housing has been precipitously rising since the end of the 90s. It was already in double-digit growth rates in Toronto and unaffordable for working class people when my wife and I bought our first house in 2005. The reality is that the most serious "inflection point" was 2008, when US (and most global) housing prices collapsed and stabilized, while Canada's continued to grow exponentially. Trudeau was not Prime Minister then. For better or for worse we have a federal system, and the provinces play the role of managing housing stock and municipal affairs, not the feds.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > But this was my point. Because the health/survival of the Canadian economies requires that rate of immigration, that's what we do. But its on the provinces, not the feds, to manage housing & municipal issues. But the provinces do not know ahead of time what needs to happen. The feds simply announce a number for the next year or so and then everyone else has to scramble. If the feds say that X people are coming, but you can only build X/2 units because that's all resources (trades, land plots) available, how do you suddenly get new capacity? If we need X people to come in for a health economy, but can only handle Y<X, then we do not just let X people, we build up to being able to going from Y to X. > Picking 2015 as an inflection point seems ridiculously partisan. Nothing partisan about it: > Up until 2015, Moffatt said, Ontario had a well-functioning real estate market, but changes to federal immigration policy under then Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and that have been expanded by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, increased the amount of newcomers to Canada. > When the price of oil crashed in 2015, not only did more immigrants choose to settle in Ontario instead of Alberta and Saskatchewan, many Canadians who moved to Western Canada for economic opportunities started coming back. * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-build-housing-crisis-1.6551546 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-build-housing-... Net immigration in Ontario: * https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com/ontarians-on-the-move-2022-edition-d16fbb41a09f https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com/ontarians-on-the-move-2022-e... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ More people arrived than could be handled because there was no prior preparation. Yes: lower levels of governments need to up their game. But the upper levels can't just steam roll them and hope for the best: everyone needs to get on the same page on what's presently possible and then what's needed for the future.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

If provinces are only able to build at a rate of X units per year, why are we bringing in (e.g.) 2X the number of people But this was my point. Because the health/survival of the Canadian economies requires that rate of immigration, that's what we do. But its on the provinces, not the feds, to manage housing & municipal issues. But there's a deep conflict of interest about how this is managed. Too many voters, real estate agents, developers, and contractors see benefit from rising housing prices, donors and voters for both parties. What do you think would happen at the ballot boxes if a provincial government started building mass tracts of rental housing -- like governments did in the 50s in the post-war baby boom when we last had a serious housing crisis? Housing prices and rents would plummet, and landowners, developers, and upper middle class homeowners would be coming after the party in power with pitchforks. Likewise, if immigration were to be throttled tomorrow, annual GDP growth would flatline and we'd be in recession and labour shortage territory. And the gov't that did this would also be punished. When I see pundits on the TV about real estate prices: it's almost always some joker of a real estate agent or mortgage broker, not a real economist. It's like asking a wolf why the flock of sheep is thinning out. Picking 2015 as an inflection point seems ridiculously partisan. I'm 50 next year. I've lived through both Conservative and Liberal governments. They've both made the same mistakes on this file, and they both suck. Housing has been precipitously rising since the end of the 90s. It was already in double-digit growth rates in Toronto and unaffordable for working class people when my wife and I bought our first house in 2005. The reality is that the most serious "inflection point" was 2008, when US (and most global) housing prices collapsed and stabilized, while Canada's continued to grow exponentially. Trudeau was not Prime Minister then. For better or for worse we have a federal system, and the provinces play the role of managing housing stock and municipal affairs, not the feds.

throw0101c 3y ago
> But this was my point. Because the health/survival of the Canadian economies requires that rate of immigration, that's what we do. But its on the provinces, not the feds, to manage housing & municipal issues. But the provinces do not know ahead of time what needs to happen. The feds simply announce a number for the next year or so and then everyone else has to scramble. If the feds say that X people are coming, but you can only build X/2 units because that's all resources (trades, land plots) available, how do you suddenly get new capacity? If we need X people to come in for a health economy, but can only handle Y<X, then we do not just let X people, we build up to being able to going from Y to X. > Picking 2015 as an inflection point seems ridiculously partisan. Nothing partisan about it: > Up until 2015, Moffatt said, Ontario had a well-functioning real estate market, but changes to federal immigration policy under then Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and that have been expanded by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, increased the amount of newcomers to Canada. > When the price of oil crashed in 2015, not only did more immigrants choose to settle in Ontario instead of Alberta and Saskatchewan, many Canadians who moved to Western Canada for economic opportunities started coming back. * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-build-housing-crisis-1.6551546 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-build-housing-... Net immigration in Ontario: * https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com/ontarians-on-the-move-2022-edition-d16fbb41a09f https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com/ontarians-on-the-move-2022-e... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ More people arrived than could be handled because there was no prior preparation. Yes: lower levels of governments need to up their game. But the upper levels can't just steam roll them and hope for the best: everyone needs to get on the same page on what's presently possible and then what's needed for the future.