this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
99 points (90.2% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
576 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
99
Globe editorial: Justin Trudeau needs to make housing a primary federal responsibility (www.theglobeandmail.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There are about 16.3 million homes in the country. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. last year calculated that, for prices to moderate, 5.8 million more are needed over the next decade – that’s 3.5 million on top of the 2.3 million that would otherwise be built. Look at those numbers and wonder why the Prime Minister held a press conference for 214 homes. Look at those numbers and consider the national housing strategy’s modest impact, 107,519 homes, so far.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've been feeling this way for a while, but it's like — and this seems largely endemic to the western world — governments are coasting on decades-old policies and mindsets that were great decades ago, but either fail or neglect to come up with anything inventive, effective, and successful anymore. It's just little baby step legislative things here with a sprinkling of token stimulus there, because they're afraid to cause even the slightest upset to anyone with a modicum of power or influence.

When was the last time a federal or provincial government implemented something that was truly solving a problem in a massive and permanent way? The only thing I can think of that vaguely qualifies is CERB, and even that was light-handed relative to revolutionary steps of the past. It was also popular and an easy political sell.

Many plausible solutions to the housing and personal income crises are easy to imagine:

  • ban corporate and foreign investment properties, forcibly purchase existing ones and turn them into public housing or sell them to small time owners
  • limit the
  • limit maximum rent increases to a percentage of inflation
  • raise minimum wage to a livable standard and legislate its increase tied to inflation
  • tax the goddamn rich already
  • implement basic income
  • implement and enforce maximum highest-to-lowest earner ratios, accounting for all wages, salaries, bonuses, investments, etc., to prevent any corporate tomfuckery

But these things would piss off too many powerful capitalists, of which many legislators happen to be members by sheer "coincidence," so instead, we get piss-ant cheques every once in a while that ease the pressure for, like, three days.

I'm not saying any of these things would be easy to implement, but they're not even trying. "Not pissing off the capitalists" needs to stop being a concern for governments. The capitalists will be fine, and if they decide to pack up and leave for greedier pastures, good fucking riddance.

They have to want to fix the problem, not just make easy political layups that create a facade of "doing something" without fixing anything.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I do agree that the governments are just coasting, and have been for decades. Some parts of certain governments have had their wakeup calls and are starting to make the changes needed, but they still feel few and far between. Either that, or many of them are having trouble waking up the parts of the government that they need their funding or plans approved.

I don't think much of those solutions would have much of an effect. Especially without addressing other issues first.

Taxing the rich doesn't matter when most of the rich get paid through investment loans and juggling stocks with assets, rather than having an actual income. Minimum wage increases are a band-aid solution that would need to be addressed every decade, presuming that it doesn't tank the economy during the adjustments. Basic income is nice, but if important things aren't affordable now, it would have no real impact on making them affordable.

I'm not saying that they fundamentally don't work, but that it's just not enough.

The most important thing is to make the things needed to have a decent life affordable to everybody. And of those things, I think two are just plain necessary. The first is a minimum level housing. Some sort of apartment complex that is free and safe, no questions asked. Basically a shelter that has separated units. Without the minimum of being able to have a safe space to sleep and clean yourself up, there's no way a person can get a job. But with this sort of safety net, no matter how bad things get, the future won't look hopeless, and almost everybody should be able to get back on their feet without needing extensive interventions.

The second is a housing supply that suppresses prices. I don't mind foreigners buying houses, as long as the supply can handle such things happening, and keep basic homes affordable. Apartments shouldn't cost more than 25% minimum wage at full time, and condos should be easy to pay off in 5-10 years. As long as the supply is high enough, it would be impossible to make a real profit from treating it like an investment, as houses are a non-performing asset. It creates no more value than what you put into it, and should thus depreciate if anything, just like a car.