Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: People both want affordable housing and people also want their existing homes not to lose value as they’ve (likely) based their retirement plan on their home as being the most valuable asset they have. Can’t have both unfortunately.
[shrug]

And the reason this matters is because homeowners vote.

We just saw in the US how relatively mild inflation caused Biden to lose the election while the US was also the strongest economy in the world.

Imagine what would happen if home prices lost 20%? The government in charge would be annihilated.

Anyways, all this talk of house prices going down is logically irrelevant (unless they become underwater on their mortgage). most people aren't buying and selling houses regularly, and even if they do, other homes go up and down proportionally. The value of your home really only becomes real when you no longer need housing, which is often upon death.

Things like the price of energy or food, cost of insurance, and most obviously interest rates rising have way more impact.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Your referring to them as “dog crate condos” — which I don’t think is an uncommon take on them — also hammers home my other point; people want more than what an actually affordable product would deliver. People’s preferences and expectations are pricing them out of real estate as badly as the state of our housing market itself is.

I have been seeing the term more and more, and admittedly a pejorative.

Kinda like that house for sale in Calgary that made the news with like 1,100 square feet and 13 bedrooms.

EDIT: This one

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

Anyways, all this talk of house prices going down is logically irrelevant (unless they become underwater on their mortgage). most people aren't buying and selling houses regularly, and even if they do, other homes go up and down proportionally. The value of your home really only becomes real when you no longer need housing, which is often upon death.

Not quite — as Corsi pointed out, people in retirement often sell to downsize, travel, fund their retirement in Florida, etc.

You could do quite well in retirement by selling your $800k house free and clear, putting the capital into income funds, and living off the distributions. $500,000 doesn’t go nearly as far.

You only realize the loss when you sell, and how close people are to retirement will change how they feel about the realities of this situation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Well, you try and convince them of that. It’s been hammered into people’s heads for how long now that your home is your biggest and most valuable asset to consider in retirement planning? Rightly or wrongly, its status as a sacred cow isn’t going to go away quickly.

Has it? The retirement planning tools I use make no reference to home value, only how much my mortgage payments are and when they’ll end.

If most rank and file Canadians look at their homes as a bank machine, then we’re probably ####ed as a country anyway, and this is all just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Personally, I don’t think most Canadians do look at their homes that way. And it’s actually a good thing if real estate speculators and people who are over-leveraged touch the stove and get burned now and then.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Not quite — as Corsi pointed out, people in retirement often sell to downsize, travel, fund their retirement in Florida, etc.

You could do quite well in retirement by selling your $800k house free and clear, putting the capital into income funds, and living off the distributions. $500,000 doesn’t go nearly as far.

You only realize the loss when you sell, and how close people are to retirement will change how they feel about the realities of this situation.

It's also just flexibility. The more you get out of your house when you sell it, the more options you have as to how to live the rest of your life, or where you live the rest of your life, or how you divide up the proceeds among funding the rest of your life vs. funding your kids vs. funding your interests or other things you care about.

I have a house in Calgary. The mortgage renewal date is in the 2030s. It won't be paid off by then, but if the value is high enough, I could have enough equity to sell it and pay off my other big loan for the cabin I'm building out in the woods in BC, while still having enough left over to buy a smaller home or a more remote one. If the value of my house here goes down, depending on interest rates, I might have to make my cabin into my residence and leave the province, which might entail changing jobs or changing my role or who knows what. Obviously that's not a complaint about my situation, being able to save up over the last 15 years to build a second place falls squarely into the category of "nice problem to have", but my home value definitely very greatly affects how my life will go over the next 10-20 years.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Drak

I’m willing to sacrifice value in my home to see prices drop to make it more affordable for people to rent and buy. But that’s just me. I don’t plan on moving or upgrading. I’d like to see young people and families have more affordable housing options.

Good intentions, but it just doesn't work that way.
If home values were to decrease say 20-30%, the economy would get crushed.

Everything is inter related, so the event of current home owners losing a bunch or money and all the first time buyers jumping in doesn't happen.

Even in Vancouver right now, we have the highest supply in over a decade, a lot of places selling as prices well down from 3-5 years ago, mortgage rates back to decent levels, and the waiting on the sideline to jump in buyers don't exist.
Toronto is even worse.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Has it? The retirement planning tools I use make no reference to home value, only how much my mortgage payments are and when they’ll end.

If most rank and file Canadians look at their homes as a bank machine, then we’re probably ####ed as a country anyway, and this is all just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Personally, I don’t think most Canadians do look at their homes that way. And it’s actually a good thing if real estate speculators and people who are over-leveraged touch the stove and get burned now and then.

I don’t even watch that much TV but I am very aware of the messaging that financial institutions have been pushing in terms of homes being an always appreciating asset that should be the bedrock of any retirement strategy. [shrug]

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also property tax increases... but this assumes you're never selling your house. Lots of people, when they retire or when they go empty nest or some time after either of those milestones will sell their home and downsize to be able to travel, or sell it to move somewhere else now that they're not tied into a school district or work commute, or a thousand other things. Increase in home value has a huge impact on that.

Some do. But not most.

One of the reasons Canada has a housing shortage is planners figured most homeowners would downsize once they became empty-nesters, freeing up detached homes for young families. That assumption has proven to be unfounded. It turns out most people become strongly attached to their homes and communities, and the great majority stay in those homes they raised children in until they die. There are millions of 2,000+ sq/ft homes in this country lived in by aging couples who have no plans to downsize or move.

I know cases where seniors have considered downsizing to a new condo or townhouse, but the price of the latter is so high there are barely any savings realized by the move. Better to stay in that $600k detached home in a familiar neighbourhood than sell it and buy a $480k condo, with all the attendant cost and disruption.

Also, it’s becoming increasingly common for adult children to move back into those homes long-term. My 50-something sister recently moved back in with my 80-something mom in our childhood home. It not only makes financial sense for both of them, but community care advisors push strongly for seniors to remain in their homes, as that corresponds to better health outcomes.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by sa226

The right has so completely warped the narrative on Environmental protection that I'm sure people are starting to question if Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is woke.

Meanwhile in the US the head of the EPA is a climate change denier and in Alberta were just totally going to let some Australian billionaires pollute our drinking water, because Go energy! Go resources! Go billionaires!

Haha, dude people have been saying recycling is "woke" for about 5 years now!

Nevermind the fact that the oil/plastics lobby sold us on recycling their crap so we can continue to use their products "guilt free" but most plastic isnt even recyclable in most major cities, despite the recycle mark on the product.

https://www.calgary.ca/waste/residen...blue-cart.html

Look at how many products in your home right now are "multi-layer plastics" meaning there are more than one set of plastic in packaging. These are largely unrecyclable because it so cost prohibitive to separate and most people are too lazy to separate.

Another example. Those fancy plastic pouches that stand neatly on the shelves. largely not recyclable:
https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/finish-.../6000205775149

But this issue is of course the fault of environmentalist and the woke mob, and not due to the fact that we push almost zero regulations on packaging in countries.

It's the easiest thing to regulate. Hey, your packaging has to be single product and must meet these requirements. But nope, some reason governments dont push that easy little fix.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is one of the problems that you likely want to inflate your way out of rather than a drastic cut.

Yeah, no government is going to make it their stated policy to drastically reduce nominal home values. That has a bunch of side effects, is largely counterproductive (as it kills investment in new housing), and is politically unpalatable.

And given the drop in nominal prices we've already seen, it really doesn't take a whole lot to get back into a somewhat reasonable range for real property prices.

The problem is, everyone (including the CMHC) uses the early 2000s as a sort of baseline that we need to return to, but that's really not appropriate or realistic. The very cheap housing that existed then stemmed from a confluence of factors that we really don't want to repeat if we can avoid it (e.g. double digit unemployment for a lot of the '90s, a decade and a half of declining growth among the 25-40 year old population, etc.). In fact, that era was an aberration historically (see chart below).

A more realistic target would be the 2010-2019 period which is roughly the median level of the last 30 years and more affordable than almost any point in the 1980-1995 period:



To get housing affordability back to what it was in that era, we need a drop of about 25% (the chart is a bit old, so some of the drop has already happened). For that to happen in 5 years or so, would require:

-continued moderation of mortgages rates into the ~3-3.5% range (which is already on its way to happening)

-flat prices or slight declines

-~2.5-3% annual wage growth, which is lower than average for recent years

None of that is particularly extreme and it doesn't require a huge housing crash. That's not to say a crash won't happen if there's a recession, but it should never be government policy to induce that. The goal should always be a soft landing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Drak

I’m willing to sacrifice value in my home to see prices drop to make it more affordable for people to rent and buy. But that’s just me. I don’t plan on moving or upgrading. I’d like to see young people and families have more affordable housing options.

This works if you have equity. But people who just bought with 5% down become stuck in their homes if the market is cut by 30% and become in jeopardy of default. So people in the first 10 years or so of ownership are particularly vulnerable.

In Calgary if you look at peak (2007) to peak (2024) it only increased by the rate of inflation

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

First day on the job, "You'll own nothing and be happy about it!" Good if you got in early enough to get a place, if not . . .

https://twitter.com/user/status/1922667874126106746

Using a wildly debunked conspiracy and manipulated statement as a precursor to your video really hurts you argument

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

What is the benefit of this kind of smug know it all platitude?

Uh, it was a compliment mixed in with knowledge of his/her current political leanings?

I was genuine in the sentiment mixed with a jab about his worst nightmare, becoming a smug, platitude spewing Libtard? (Can we say Libtard, being a portmanteau of the nasty terrible word we can't say combined with the R word?")

[Harry Lime]

Another option that would be good for Canada, would be to build infrastructure for northern communities. Then incentivize new Canadian to move there, or prioritize people who want to move there, or both.

It's kind of like the CBC argument, or the post office argument. You have to accept certain things are not going to make boatloads of money, if you want to have a safe and secure democracy.

That would lower the stress on housing, to a small degree, and the benefits to our sovereignty would be legion.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sometimes on the internet place a lot of us have been on together for 10+ years we like to do this thing called “kidding around” (there are other names for it: joking around, taking the piss, ribbing, “having a laugh” if you’re TrentCrimm pretending to be British again). I know we’ve got some sensitive folks and those for whom this is SUPER SERIOUS business and people who like to take it but not dish it, but I also know Prince isn’t any of those things, so put down the armour and relax.

tl;dr because it’s funny

HEY! F YOU! I am sick and tired of you gallivanting in here and expressing truth, logic and clear headed thinking!! If you are just going to follow me around and say I am funny that is abusive sir. You thought that was funny? Well let me tell you I am not your ####ing clown. Do you know why I put things here? DO YOU? It is because it tickles MY funny bone. That is it!! If someone else thinks it is funny that is THEIR ####ing problem!! If someone lets it fly over their head like chemtrails in the sky or the spy satellites Carney has launched, that is also their problem.

So, once again I say Good DAY SIR!! I said GOOD DAY!!




(p.s. PepsiFress said my post was funny!!!)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, there might be some money to be made in doing that if the northern community in question is in Manitoba and you're shipping energy products out of there...

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Another option that would be good for Canada, would be to build infrastructure for northern communities. Then incentivize new Canadian to move there, or prioritize people who want to move there, or both.

It's kind of like the CBC argument, or the post office argument. You have to accept certain things are not going to make boatloads of money, if you want to have a safe and secure democracy.

That would lower the stress on housing, to a small degree, and the benefits to our sovereignty would be legion.

Is this not the entire point of government? Providing services that will definitely NOT make money?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Is this not the entire point of government? Providing services that will definitely NOT make money?

... No?

I mean there are a lot of services the government provides and many would argue should provide that could easily make money, if the government wasn't providing it. The most obvious example is health care. You can obviously acknowledge that there's a ton of money to be made there (as is obvious down south) and still think the government should be the one providing the service because, well... look at what it's like when they don't.

This is of course leaving aside the fact that what the "point of government" is varies enormously depending on your political ideology.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... No?

I mean there are a lot of services the government provides and many would argue should provide that could easily make money, if the government wasn't providing it. The most obvious example is health care. You can obviously acknowledge that there's a ton of money to be made there (as is obvious down south) and still think the government should be the one providing the service because, well... look at what it's like when they don't.

This is of course leaving aside the fact that what the "point of government" is varies enormously depending on your political ideology.

Ok. What I was getting at was that governments provide services that are not purpose built to make money. Schools, fire departments, military (bad example if we look to the US again!) Yes, there are things that the gov't could do and can also make money at it. However, I tend to think the gov't's role is better as an overseer and regulator than as an owner/operator, for most things.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, there might be some money to be made in doing that if the northern community in question is in Manitoba and you're shipping energy products out of there...

Are you, or anyone, aware of any actual studies on the feasibility of this? I know Fuzz posted about it but I don't think he had studies as much as his own thoughts?

Where is Fuzz btw? Has not posted in a bit. I hope he wasn't buried under a clay pile.