What a weird thing to focus on in terms of the housing crisis. Profiteering landlords, REITs, etc.,? Nope, it's the international students that are the real problem here.
They’re a big part of the rental crisis in cities with rapidly growing student populations. 620k a year (up from 120k in 2000) concentrated in universities that haven’t built nearly enough residential housing is absolutely a problem in small cities like London, Kingston, and Halifax. The CBC has even done stories about it. Weirdly.
Is it really off-base to talk about the how the number of people who need housing affects the cost of housing? Landlords are going to charge what they can. And they can charge more when the number of people who need housing increases faster than new housing is built.
If we want to safeguard students from ‘profiteering’ landlords (are there non-profiteering landlords?), then universities need to build far more student residences. But they haven’t - they’ve dramatically increased their intake of international students in the last 20 years because they can charge three times the tuition as they charge domestic students, without a corresponding increase in student housing capacity. They get the benefit of international students (more $$$), while offloading the infrastructure costs on municipalities and leaving students vulnerable to housing markets that can’t cope with the influx.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 07-12-2023 at 12:43 PM.
It seems one answer would be to aggressively tax the income on those funds as passive income. There seems to be conflicting information on the interwebs as to what tax is paid.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
They’re a big part of the rental crisis in cities with rapidly growing student populations. 620k a year (up from 120k in 2000) concentrated in universities that haven’t built nearly enough residential housing is absolutely a problem in small cities like London, Kingston, and Halifax. The CBC has even done stories about it. Weirdly.
Is it really off-base to talk about the how the number of people who need housing affects the cost of housing? Landlords are going to charge what they can. And they can charge more when the number of people who need housing increases faster than new housing is built.
If we want to safeguard students from ‘profiteering’ landlords (are there non-profiteering landlords?), then universities need to build far more student residences. But they haven’t - they’ve dramatically increased their intake of international students in the last 20 years because they can charge three times the tuition as they charge domestic students, without a corresponding increase in student housing capacity. They get the benefit of international students (more $$$), while offloading the infrastructure costs on municipalities and leaving students vulnerable to housing markets that can’t cope with the influx.
That makes more sense.
Do we know that the universities aren't even attempting to reinvest those funds into housing?
Anecdotally, I know that UVic has essentially maxed out the amount of student housing they can build on their property. Can't imagine that buying additional land in the surrounding neighbourhoods would be very easy due to both the costs involved and the insane NIMBYs that live by the university.
They’re a big part of the rental crisis in cities with rapidly growing student populations. 620k a year (up from 120k in 2000) concentrated in universities that haven’t built nearly enough residential housing is absolutely a problem in small cities like London, Kingston, and Halifax. The CBC has even done stories about it. Weirdly.
Is it really off-base to talk about the how the number of people who need housing affects the cost of housing? Landlords are going to charge what they can. And they can charge more when the number of people who need housing increases faster than new housing is built.
If we want to safeguard students from ‘profiteering’ landlords (are there non-profiteering landlords?), then universities need to build far more student residences. But they haven’t - they’ve dramatically increased their intake of international students in the last 20 years because they can charge three times the tuition as they charge domestic students, without a corresponding increase in student housing capacity. They get the benefit of international students (more $$$), while offloading the infrastructure costs on municipalities and leaving students vulnerable to housing markets that can’t cope with the influx.
So it seems the real problem is insufficient government funding, which has led Universities to do whatever they can to get money to function, and housing is a pretty low priority to spend that on given all their other challenges to operate. Would Universities chase international students if they were properly funded? I'd guess the answer is a big no.
So lack of education funding is contributing to our housing crisis. Fun game of connect the dots.
They’re a big part of the rental crisis in cities with rapidly growing student populations. 620k a year (up from 120k in 2000) concentrated in universities that haven’t built nearly enough residential housing is absolutely a problem in small cities like London, Kingston, and Halifax. The CBC has even done stories about it. Weirdly.
Is it really off-base to talk about the how the number of people who need housing affects the cost of housing? Landlords are going to charge what they can. And they can charge more when the number of people who need housing increases faster than new housing is built.
If we want to safeguard students from ‘profiteering’ landlords (are there non-profiteering landlords?), then universities need to build far more student residences. But they haven’t - they’ve dramatically increased their intake of international students in the last 20 years because they can charge three times the tuition as they charge domestic students, without a corresponding increase in student housing capacity. They get the benefit of international students (more $$$), while offloading the infrastructure costs on municipalities and leaving students vulnerable to housing markets that can’t cope with the influx.
Student housing prices were absurd in London like 20 years ago. Looking at the prices now - the increases for rooms near Western or Fanshawe don't look like they've grown as much as regular rentals here.
I can tell you Cape Breton University has had no plan for student housing needs, and have been giving even less f***s about the housing market in general.
Here's CTV's W5 on the topic of international students at Canadian Universities, specifically the one in my hometown.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
They’re a big part of the rental crisis in cities with rapidly growing student populations. 620k a year (up from 120k in 2000) concentrated in universities that haven’t built nearly enough residential housing is absolutely a problem in small cities like London, Kingston, and Halifax. The CBC has even done stories about it. Weirdly.
Is it really off-base to talk about the how the number of people who need housing affects the cost of housing? Landlords are going to charge what they can. And they can charge more when the number of people who need housing increases faster than new housing is built.
If we want to safeguard students from ‘profiteering’ landlords (are there non-profiteering landlords?), then universities need to build far more student residences. But they haven’t - they’ve dramatically increased their intake of international students in the last 20 years because they can charge three times the tuition as they charge domestic students, without a corresponding increase in student housing capacity. They get the benefit of international students (more $$$), while offloading the infrastructure costs on municipalities and leaving students vulnerable to housing markets that can’t cope with the influx.
I do feel your pain. Where I work we actually require that students live on campus for the first year (2 years?) or commute from home. That worked great for a while, but we're growing quickly and we had to build 3...yes, 3 new residence buildings in the last 5 years. There are plans to tear down and rebuild another one to increase capacity on the same plot of land (building is also from the 60's and is really not in good shape now too). In order to make it happen faster, we actually partnered with a private company to share the cost of building and then any profit above cost of operations with them. These are the sorts of innovative solutions required to make this work these days, and the only way we can manage it is because we are a fairly small private school (though, not that small anymore).
It's just an issue to do with cost of living across the board. It's hard for schools to deliver affordable housing.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
So it seems the real problem is insufficient government funding, which has led Universities to do whatever they can to get money to function, and housing is a pretty low priority to spend that on given all their other challenges to operate. Would Universities chase international students if they were properly funded? I'd guess the answer is a big no.
So lack of education funding is contributing to our housing crisis. Fun game of connect the dots.
I wouldn’t debate you that education might be inadequately funded, I’m not sure, it’s possible. But I don’t think your assertion that universities just wouldn’t chase the money from immigrant students makes any sense. They would take any money government gave them and then even if such funding was adequate would still be incentivized to chase the higher value immigrant students too.
I wouldn’t debate you that education might be inadequately funded, I’m not sure, it’s possible. But I don’t think your assertion that universities just wouldn’t chase the money from immigrant students makes any sense. They would take any money government gave them and then even if such funding was adequate would still be incentivized to chase the higher value immigrant students too.
Right, but they wouldn't feel such pressure, and governments could then also reasonably limit numbers if it made sense to.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
The argument that it is immoral is social justice warrior horse####. Private interests can do whatever they want, including having specific recruitment behaviors and criteria that may rub people the wrong way.
Elite private schools can recruit however they want and I can point out that the public good would be better served by entirely merit-based admissions and not a preference for the daughters and sons of alumni. Once more you entirely miss the point, which is not that private schools can't do what they are doing, but that they shouldn't do it.
Arguing that money and connections are more important than ability and hard work is very on-brand for an American academic. Keep telling everyone else how we don't understand the realities of America while the country falls apart around you.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Elite private schools can recruit however they want and I can point out that the public good would be better served by entirely merit-based admissions and not a preference for the daughters and sons of alumni. Once more you entirely miss the point, which is not that private schools can't do what they are doing, but that they shouldn't do it.
Arguing that money and connections are more important than ability and hard work is very on-brand for an American academic. Keep telling everyone else how we don't understand the realities of America while the country falls apart around you.
I thought everyone already knew that money and connections are more important than ability and hard work. No?
Pretty sure that's why Harvard admissions are so competitive.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I mean, if anything, the money/connections angle to school is just a reflection of the working world, and so isn't it better that people don't get the wrong impression about how the world works from school?
\s
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
I do feel your pain. Where I work we actually require that students live on campus for the first year (2 years?) or commute from home. That worked great for a while, but we're growing quickly and we had to build 3...yes, 3 new residence buildings in the last 5 years. There are plans to tear down and rebuild another one to increase capacity on the same plot of land (building is also from the 60's and is really not in good shape now too). In order to make it happen faster, we actually partnered with a private company to share the cost of building and then any profit above cost of operations with them. These are the sorts of innovative solutions required to make this work these days, and the only way we can manage it is because we are a fairly small private school (though, not that small anymore).
It's just an issue to do with cost of living across the board. It's hard for schools to deliver affordable housing.
Why do they make it mandatory? There's usually so much more affordable options off campus.
Elite private schools can recruit however they want and I can point out that the public good would be better served by entirely merit-based admissions and not a preference for the daughters and sons of alumni. Once more you entirely miss the point, which is not that private schools can't do what they are doing, but that they shouldn't do it.
In your social justice warrior mindset they shouldn't do it. Meanwhile the rest of the world, including Canadians, flock to the United States to get educated and get a degree from an American school, especially those elite schools. It's because the value of the degree is superior to that which you can get almost anywhere else in the world and they provide access you can't get elsewhere.
Quote:
Arguing that money and connections are more important than ability and hard work is very on-brand for an American academic.
Anyone who doesn't believe that is an idiot, plain and simple. Money and social standing have always been more important than ability. As long as man has worked together in collectives and established social order those with the means and the connections have always been at the forefront and done everything in their power to retain that social and political standing. The sooner people understand that and learn to play the game by the rules established a long time ago the better equipped they will be to exist in that system, gain positions of influence in that system, and then ultimately change it from the inside out. But here's a dirty little secret for you social justice warriors; Humans are very predictable, especially when it comes to power and influence. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once people get accepted into the club they readily comply with the rules and adopt the same behaviors and maintain access to their newfound standing, for themselves and their offspring. It is human nature.
Quote:
Keep telling everyone else how we don't understand the realities of America while the country falls apart around you.
You don't understand the realities of America and you never will until you are part of it. Ask any Canadian who moved to the United States if the country was what they expected? You're going to get a resounding no. The mass media paints a picture of life that doesn't really exist. The country is way more simple and way more complex all at the same time. The nuances and idiosyncrasies are subtle and extreme. The culture, while supposedly homogenous, is extremely rich and varied. The bravado of "U.S.A." is countered by an incredible timidity and uncertainty that is at times unnerving. You believe in the caricature projected by the media, but the country is nothing like that painted picture. You will only understand that once you're in the middle of it and experience it firsthand.
I would also warn you against suggesting Canada is any different or any better. You're on the exact same slippery slope and following us down the same path. You're just like the frog in pot of water on a slow boil, you just aren't feeling it. Canada has always been about 20 years behind the United States in adoption of cultural and political norms. That seems to be accelerating. All the faults you see in the United States exist in Canada, just with a slightly different context.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
lol, the only one qualified to talk about the realities of both America AND Canada, apparently.
The US is no more difficult to understand than Canada, in that there’s really nothing special to understand. Especially in Canada, where you basically get fed 90% American content. I’m sure there are Canadians that understand the made up concept of “America” better than most Americans, considering that understanding varies wildly whether you live in California, New York, or Florida.
At the end of the day it has nothing to do with the fact that hard work and ability should matter more than money and connections. That’s not a special social justice warrior idea, or something than non-Americans couldn’t POSSIBLY understand, it’s just a basic, universal idea that any decent human has.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
lol, the only one qualified to talk about the realities of both America AND Canada, apparently.
The US is no more difficult to understand than Canada, in that there’s really nothing special to understand. Especially in Canada, where you basically get fed 90% American content. I’m sure there are Canadians that understand the made up concept of “America” better than most Americans, considering that understanding varies wildly whether you live in California, New York, or Florida.
At the end of the day it has nothing to do with the fact that hard work and ability should matter more than money and connections. That’s not a special social justice warrior idea, or something than non-Americans couldn’t POSSIBLY understand, it’s just a basic, universal idea that any decent human has.
Take your meritocracy fantasies back to the drum circle, Plato.
