Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the average person today isn’t worse off than the average person in the 60s or 70s. They live in bigger houses, dine out more, and are more likely to fly outside the country for vacations. They have nicer appliances in their home, more cars per household, and spend much more on children’s activities and enrichment. The average person today would hate switching places with the average household in 1975.

I think you're ignoring the generational divide though. Maybe a 40-50 year old who owns their house wouldn't want to trade places. But a 20 year old who has no realistic path of ever owning a house might feel differently.

My grandparents immigrated to Canada in the early '60s and within 3 years of working menial jobs, they were able to buy a house in Vancouver for about $9K ($88K in today's dollars). And within a few years after that they bought a brand new house for $15K (about $140K in today's dollars).

They sacrificed a lot to be able to do that; my grandmother worked in an era where a lot of women didn't, they lived with family the first couple of years in Canada, lived extremely modestly, and so on. But back then even low wage earners could scrimp and save to buy a house, which simply isn't the case now.

Nowadays, those exact houses, which are the same size they ever were and for the most part have the same quality finishes, are worth about $2M; 15-20x more expensive in real terms. To buy one of those houses now even with a minimum down payment would require saving up $100K and having a $350K household income to service the mortgage. So now you'd need to be in the top 1-2% of household income to buy the exact same house that a janitor could buy in the 1960s.

[PsYcNeT]

Canadian Income vs Home Prices 1994-2024

1994:
Median household after-tax income: $32,678 (equivalent to $60,548 in today’s value)

Average house price: $160,064 (equivalent to $296,560 in today’s value)

Mortgage interest rate: 9.53% (5-year conventional mortgage rate)

2024:
Median household after-tax income: $82,432

Average house price: $690,531 (as of April 2024)

5-year conventional mortgage rate: 6.08% (as of April 2024)

From here

It's pretty easy to see why this generation feels a lot more hopeless about home ownership, when wages have absolutely not kept pace with home prices.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I think you're ignoring the generational divide though. Maybe a 40-50 year old who owns their house wouldn't want to trade places. But a 20 year old who has no realistic path of ever owning a house might feel differently.

My grandparents immigrated to Canada in the early '60s and within 3 years of working menial jobs, they were able to buy a house in Vancouver for about $9K ($88K in today's dollars). And within a few years after that they bought a brand new house for $15K (about $140K in today's dollars).

They sacrificed a lot to be able to do that; my grandmother worked in an era where a lot of women didn't, they lived with family the first couple of years in Canada, lived extremely modestly, and so on. But back then even low wage earners could scrimp and save to buy a house, which simply isn't the case now.

Nowadays, those exact houses, which are the same size they ever were and for the most part have the same quality finishes, are worth about $2M; 15-20x more expensive in real terms. To buy one of those houses now even with a minimum down payment would require saving up $100K and having a $350K household income to service the mortgage. So now you'd need to be in the top 1-2% of household income to buy the exact same house that a janitor could buy in the 1960s.

Part of me wonders whether there was just more ability or desire to move back in the day. If you didn't get the house you wanted in Vancouver, you'd go to Winnipeg. If Winnipeg is too expensive, then Lethbridge. Etc.

I wonder whether there's actually a potential for another metropolitan area to develop where 50 years from now our grandkids or great-grandkids would be like "In 2030 you bought a nice house in the middle of Red Deer for 250k, and now those exact houses are worth $2.5M in 2100".

Or is that type of movement just dead in the new age?

[puffnstuff]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/federal-elect...e-tent-cities/

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Wednesday he would give police more power to dismantle tent cities, which he claims are making public spaces unsafe.
Poilievre said he would give police the tools to criminally charge the occupants of tent encampments. But he said judges would also have the power to sentence people charged with illegally occupying a public place or simple possession of illegal drugs to mandatory drug treatment instead of harsher penalties.
Poilievre said public spaces in Canada have “become a breeding ground for addiction, violence, human trafficking and crime.” He has promised already to shut down safe supply sites and give judges the power to order mandatory drug treatment for those struggling with addiction.

[MarchHare]

Criminalizing people for being poor? I assume PP also promised substantially increased funding for homeless shelters and other social services, right? Right...?

What's next from PP and the Conservative Party, A Modest Proposal?

[woob]

Ugh I despise his fear mongering.

Another example:

Poilievre says a government report predicts a 'terrifying' 2040. Here's what it actually says.

"The report paints a terrifying picture of a spiral of economic depression and cost inflation," Poilievre said after releasing his party's costed platform.

"What they are anticipating on the current trajectory is a total meltdown, a societal breakdown in Canada if we stay on the current track."

Not only is the report far from that stark, its authors stress the document is not meant to be seen as predicting the future.

Premised on the suggestion that downward social mobility "might" become the norm in the future, the report's authors lay out a scenario for 2040 "in which most Canadians find themselves stuck in the socioeconomic conditions of their birth and many face the very real possibility of downward social mobility.

"Currently, most Canadians still believe that they have equality of opportunity," it said. "This may change."

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by starseed

Ah, so today we found out that they actually weren't ready with that Friday version. That version forgot an important piece of their costed platform that they must have added in over the weekend.

The war against 'woke ideology' was retroactively added in to the platform today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-woke-platform-oversight-1.7516315

NoT LiKe TrUmP aT AlL.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

https://www.ctvnews.ca/federal-elect...e-tent-cities/

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Wednesday he would give police more power to dismantle tent cities, which he claims are making public spaces unsafe.
Poilievre said he would give police the tools to criminally charge the occupants of tent encampments. But he said judges would also have the power to sentence people charged with illegally occupying a public place or simple possession of illegal drugs to mandatory drug treatment instead of harsher penalties.
Poilievre said public spaces in Canada have “become a breeding ground for addiction, violence, human trafficking and crime.” He has promised already to shut down safe supply sites and give judges the power to order mandatory drug treatment for those struggling with addiction.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Criminalizing people for being poor? I assume PP also promised substantially increased funding for homeless shelters and other social services, right? Right...?

What's next from PP and the Conservative Party, A Modest Proposal?

Make all tent cities illegal except within 100 metres of a church or place of worship. Time to earn that registered charity status since people are coming around to realizing that "advancement of religion" is not -- nor should it be considered -- a charitable purpose.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Make all tent cities illegal except within 100 metres of a church or place of worship. Time to earn that registered charity status since people are coming around to realizing that "advancement of religion" is not -- nor should it be considered -- a charitable purpose.

Churches plays a crucial role in leading charitable efforts, driven by a commitment to faith, community, and service. Through mobilizing resources, identifying needs, fostering volunteerism, and advocating for justice, churches can make a profound impact on the lives of individuals and communities.

I know from experience that our church (the United Church of Canada) did a lot of work visiting people in hospitals and nursing homes, bringing families in from the cold during the winter, donating to charitable efforts in foreign countries, etc.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Canadian Income vs Home Prices 1994-2024





From here

It's pretty easy to see why this generation feels a lot more hopeless about home ownership, when wages have absolutely not kept pace with home prices.

If you throw out Toronto and Vancouver it’s not bad at all.

If you look at Edmonton for example the interest paid for one year on the total value of a house is a lower % of income than in 1994. Housing in Edmonton is more affordable.

Vancouver and Toronto have a problem the rest of Canada that’s much more in question.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Criminally charging people occupying tent cities is madness. It’s hard enough for the unhoused to obtain a job, now it’ll be just impossible, with the exception of under-the-table money.

Destroy the encampments, sure I guess, but why add the extra? Where are they supposed to go? Has Pollievre vowed to increase homeless shelters, or?

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Apparently of people being polled who say they have already voted, Liberals are up 17 points on the CPC. If that's accurate this is a blood bath through and through. Country is going to be painted red.

What's the source for that? Would be great if true.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The whole plastic straws thing is crazy. There is concrete evidence that they are finding micro plastics in placenta, mothers are transferring the plastic in their bodies into their unborn children. That is totally alarming and trumps any conversation about how a straw feels in your mouth.

The presence or absence of plastic straws has nothing to do with though. The ban of plastic straws had nothing to do with this.

A turtle died and it was published on social media and people reacted. Now we don’t have plastic straws. It’s an amazing example of the failure of the government in power and the opposition to craft meaningful policy for the betterment of people.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Apparently of people being polled who say they have already voted, Liberals are up 17 points on the CPC. If that's accurate this is a blood bath through and through. Country is going to be painted red.

With everything we know about early voting in the US there is nothing to suggest it is predictive of the final results.

[blender]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Criminalizing people for being poor? I assume PP also promised substantially increased funding for homeless shelters and other social services, right? Right...?

What's next from PP and the Conservative Party, A Modest Proposal?

You really wouldn't want to eat the homeless. They are sinewy and tough, and a lot of them would tainted. Swift's babies would have made much finer fare.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Canadian Income vs Home Prices 1994-2024





From here

It's pretty easy to see why this generation feels a lot more hopeless about home ownership, when wages have absolutely not kept pace with home prices.

I think there are better ways to present this data, because the interest rate and inflation numbers can easily skew peoples prospective on this.

For example with the numbers you used.

1994
Monthly Wage $2,723
Down Payment 5.9 months wage
Monthly Mortgage 47% of wage

2024
Monthly Wage $6,869
Down Payment 10.1 months wage
Monthly Mortgage 61% of wage


But I also think you are working from a somewhat cherry picked data set in terms of interest rates and home prices, where 1994 might be towards the lower end of an affordability curve with interest rates dropping, and prices not yet having responded. A short google search tells me in 92/93 rates were more in the 8%-9%

And with your 2024 number reflecting a temporary spike in interest rates, that was expected by just about everyone to fall.

If you redo the 2024 numbers at 4% interest it looks like this.
2024
Monthly Wage $6,869
Down Payment 10.1 months wage
Monthly Mortgage 49% of wage

Meaning that it takes longer to save up and buy a house, but the cost of carrying a house hasn't moved much, and I would speculate that other mechanisms like 5% for the first $500,000 or first time home buyers savings accounts have made up some of the gap in saving for a down payment.

All of this to say, the numbers when you actually look at them show that home prices haven't changed much at all. What has changed is that the cost of participating in society is higher, transportation, communication, entertainment all consume a higher share of income, and people feel squeezed by that, but don't necessarily blame it directly on that. This also does not capture that we are buying a lot more house for our money, what was the average sqft and finishing on that $170K house, 1500 & Luminant? what is the average on the $690K house? 2000 & Stone/Wood? Basically rather than taking productivity gains and making things cheaper, we have taken them and made things better, but they cost more.

None of this is to blame the people who are struggling with the market, but to explain that changing market expectation on how we allocate our money squeezing people.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I think you're ignoring the generational divide though. Maybe a 40-50 year old who owns their house wouldn't want to trade places. But a 20 year old who has no realistic path of ever owning a house might feel differently.

My grandparents immigrated to Canada in the early '60s and within 3 years of working menial jobs, they were able to buy a house in Vancouver for about $9K ($88K in today's dollars). And within a few years after that they bought a brand new house for $15K (about $140K in today's dollars).

They sacrificed a lot to be able to do that; my grandmother worked in an era where a lot of women didn't, they lived with family the first couple of years in Canada, lived extremely modestly, and so on. But back then even low wage earners could scrimp and save to buy a house, which simply isn't the case now.

Nowadays, those exact houses, which are the same size they ever were and for the most part have the same quality finishes, are worth about $2M; 15-20x more expensive in real terms. To buy one of those houses now even with a minimum down payment would require saving up $100K and having a $350K household income to service the mortgage. So now you'd need to be in the top 1-2% of household income to buy the exact same house that a janitor could buy in the 1960s.

Housing affordability is worse, yes. But you’ve posted data here showing that it’s only in the last few years that housing affordability in Canada became worse than it was in the early 80s. Did I get that right, or am I misremembering?

The point I was making was that Canadians don’t want to pay for the level of public services we expect to enjoy. Again, you’ve pointed out yourself that Canadians are not highly taxed relative to our peers and that we don’t spend excessively on public health care. It sounds like we’re on the same page here.

So what’s your preferred policy solution to Canada’s health capacity crisis and demographic challenges?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by starseed

Ah, so today we found out that they actually weren't ready with that Friday version. That version forgot an important piece of their costed platform that they must have added in over the weekend.

The war against 'woke ideology' was retroactively added in to the platform today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-woke-platform-oversight-1.7516315

They should be forced to define precisely what they mean by woke ideology. Lay out the pieces you are getting rid of. Are disability accommodations woke? Requiring female facilities in traditional male spaces that weren't originally built with them? Removing PoC monuments, pictures and stories form our history? How Trumpian is this going to go? I want specifics, not vague hand wavy fluff. Tell the Canadian people your intentions BEFORE the election. Because currently, the only reasonable assumption we can make is it is exactly what Trump is doing. If it isn't, spell it out.


If only the media were able to ask him these types of questions, which is kinda the point of having a free press in a democracy. Apparently Pierre doesn't value that, and any Canadian considering voting for him should think seriously about what that means.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They should be forced to define precisely what they mean by woke ideology. Lay out the pieces you are getting rid of. Are disability accommodations woke? Requiring female facilities in traditional male spaces that weren't originally built with them? Removing PoC monuments, pictures and stories form our history? How Trumpian is this going to go? I want specifics, not vague hand wavy fluff. Tell the Canadian people your intentions BEFORE the election. Because currently, the only reasonable assumption we can make is it is exactly what Trump is doing. If it isn't, spell it out.


If only the media were able to ask him these types of questions, which is kinda the point of having a free press in a democracy. Apparently Pierre doesn't value that, and any Canadian considering voting for him should think seriously about what that means.

This is why there should be multiple debates. There is really no reason that they couldn't have a debate once a week for the campaign period, and a lot of questions. I know they need to visit cheese factories and get in the way at lumber mills or whatever else, but they should be openly facing questions more often.

[Fuzz]

I think Pierre is just a giant coward who is all bark and no bite. If he had confidence in his convictions, he'd permit them to be questioned so he could defend them, and convince people with details. We know he's a coward afraid of real reporters so can't do that, and it sure looks like a hidden agenda that he doesn't want to discuss the details of.