Population Growth In Canada Is Outpacing Housing Completions By 40%

[CdnFox]

https://storeys.com/canada-population-growth-outpacing-housing-completions/

Just as the title says. Our population is growing 40 percent faster than our ability to house people.

This is a major crisis.   I dont' get how people can be worried about what the temperature will be 100 years from now but be completely complacent about THIS -  AS PEOPLE RUN OUT OF PLACES TO LIVE OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO CRASH.

There will be more civil unrest, there will be more violence and lawlessness as people become desperate,  there will be LESS business investment which means a lower standard of living where middle management at wall mart is now considered a top tier career choice.

EVERY level of gov't needs to step it up and the feds should be leading the way - and the provinces should be taking back control of much of this and doing proper regional expansion planning becasue "Density" isn't going to cut it, even a little bit.

 

This is a freaking disaster and it's just not being treated seriously enough.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is a freaking disaster and it's just not being treated seriously enough.

Overpopulation is happening all over the planet and we knew decades ago it was going to happen.  You thought we'd be immune and everything would be groovy?  You must have been listening to a politician or something.

Google up frog and a boiling pot of water maybe that'll help. Its an analogy to climate change but it works in this case too.

[QuebecOverCanada]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Overpopulation is happening all over the planet

That simply isn't true and a deflection from the debate.

Many countries have negative population growth, especially first world countries, and Canada is not obliged by any means to welcome as many foreigners as it does at this pace. It is economically unsound, socially catastrophic and morally wrong to sustain this model.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Overpopulation is happening all over the planet and we knew decades ago it was going to happen.  

I see what you're doing - you're trying to start the week off with your stupidest comment so you look like you're improving the rest of the week

"Overpopulation" is the LEAST of our problems.  we have the second largest country in the world and one of the smallest populations.  We have tonnes of room. We are not 'overcrowded'.   The problem is our population is growing faster than our ability to build new homes for them.

If anything the actual problem for MOST countries is that they aren't even replacing their native population in birth rate.

And no -  we didn't "Know decades ago".   This has only  been a problem for the last decade or two and mostly in teh last decade.

What happend is that the federal gov't started radically increasing immigration in 2015 without any thought to the number of homes being built.  By 2016 we were building 100 thosuand homes fewer every year than we needed to keep the problem from getting worse, but we kept increasing immigration and ignored the problem.  Or more accurately, our federal gov't did. 

Now we have a vastly higher population and no where near enough homes and the gov't is bringing in more.

This isn't a problem that's been 'decades and decades' in the making - this is a 'last decde' crisis that needs to finally be taken seriously by this gov't.

[Jack9000]

billions will be announced for housing tomomorrow in the fall statement.

[CdnFox]

 

1 hour ago, Jack9000 said:

billions will be announced for housing tomomorrow in the fall statement.

Well it will depend on how many billions and what housing that will make that a horrible thing or an ok thing,

If its' more of this 'affordable housing' nonsense then it's wasted money and inflation goes up.

If it's mostly to help municipalities to fast track projects, it may help a little but probably not much.

If it's something a little more creative or direct like the gov't buying property and building the units with contractors and selling them break even then depending on the scope it might not be so bad.

We'll see. The devil is always in the details.

 

[Jack9000]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Well it will depend on how many billions and what housing that will make that a horrible thing or an ok thing,

If its' more of this 'affordable housing' nonsense then it's wasted money and inflation goes up.

If it's mostly to help municipalities to fast track projects, it may help a little but probably not much.

If it's something a little more creative or direct like the gov't buying property and building the units with contractors and selling them break even then depending on the scope it might not be so bad.

We'll see. The devil is always in the details.

 

suppose to be enough for 30000 homes i think find out more tomorrow afternoon i am sure.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Jack9000 said:

suppose to be enough for 30000 homes i think find out more tomorrow afternoon i am sure.

well they better do a hell of a lot more than that - we're falling behind each year by 10 times that number right now.

Guess we'll see - maybe that's just the low income stuff and they have a plan for the other 200 or so we need per year above what we're building now.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And no -  we didn't "Know decades ago".   This has only  been a problem for the last decade or two and mostly in teh last decade.

The concerns about the consequences of population explosion started in the sixties. Milestone publications were the 1968 book The Population bomb by biologist Paul Ehrlich, the report of the Club of Rome from 1972 (The Limits to Growth) and the first World Population Plan of Action of the UN in 1974 among others.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987379/#:~:text=The concerns about the consequences,UN in 1974 among others.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Many countries have negative population growth

And conventional economic wisdom says these economies are doomed because of it.

There are seriously regarded economists who say we need 100 million Canadians by 2100.

 

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The concerns about the consequences of population explosion started in the sixties. Milestone publications were the 1968 book The Population bomb by biologist Paul Ehrlich, the report of the Club of Rome from 1972 (The Limits to Growth) and the first World Population Plan of Action of the UN in 1974 among others.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987379/#:~:text=The concerns about the consequences,UN in 1974 among others.

That's america you 1diot.  Is it asking too much for you to keep track of which country you live in?

And the us isn't going through anything remotely like what we are with housing.

 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Is it asking too much for you to keep track of which country you live in?

As opposed to the obvious challenges you face grokking what planet it's on? No, not at all.

 

[OftenWrong]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As opposed to the obvious challenges you face grokking what planet it's on? No, not at all.

 

Is why, and I've said it before, we need a leader who tells people to have more babies. Screw! For god and country!

[QuebecOverCanada]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

1. And conventional economic wisdom says these economies are doomed because of it.

2. There are seriously regarded economists who say we need 100 million Canadians by 2100.

1. Japan has lower inflation and the same GDP growth as Canada despite having its population dropping. Same with South Korea. These two countries have little to no immigration and have no plan to increase it.

2. Can you give a name?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

1. Japan has lower inflation and the same GDP growth as Canada despite having its population dropping. Same with South Korea. These two countries have little to no immigration and have no plan to increase it.

There are problems with shrinking populations.  And comparing anyone's gdp growth to ours isn't great, ours sucks right now.

They are not  insurmountable problems by any stretch but it's desirable to have SOME growth.

Having said that, just because a little is good doesn't mean a lot is better.  It's like salt - a sprinkle can make a meal much better, but dump in on by the barrel and you won't enjoy the result.

[QuebecOverCanada]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There are problems with shrinking populations.  And comparing anyone's gdp growth to ours isn't great, ours sucks right now.

They are not  insurmountable problems by any stretch but it's desirable to have SOME growth.

Having said that, just because a little is good doesn't mean a lot is better.  It's like salt - a sprinkle can make a meal much better, but dump in on by the barrel and you won't enjoy the result.

I'm not an advocate for the surge of population growth we are currently facing in Canada.

If population growth would lead to higher economic growth, Norway would be one of the poorest countries on Earth and Nigeria one of the richest.

If you increase the number of people having to share a pie, the pie portions shrink.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

I'm not an advocate for the surge of population growth we are currently facing in Canada.

Well you're not alone, polling indicates most canadians think it's too much. The gov't promotes it because it sort of solves a money problem for them but it creates a tonne of problems that will come home to roost (and already is).  They just don't care if they can make it to the next election.

Quote

If population growth would lead to higher economic growth, Norway would be one of the poorest countries on Earth and Nigeria one of the richest.

Sure ... if population were the ONLY THING that affected a country's economy   C'mon, you don't really need me to explain why that is, right?    Cute line but not really real.

Norway's gdp has also been flat as hell for decades now btw.  If you thought they were doing well - no, not really.

Declining growth affects workforce availability, talent pool, it leads to stagnation of real estate (nobody building new homes, old homes getting older),  it creates very serious problems with providing social services and pensions to older people, it can have strong health care ramifications, there are other problems. It's not like it's complete disaster but there are serious problems.

Quote

If you increase the number of people having to share a pie, the pie portions shrink.

Sigh.  If you bring in more bakers, the amount of Pie goes up.  C'mon - at least make this a challenge  

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

1. Japan has lower inflation and the same GDP growth as Canada despite having its population dropping. Same with South Korea. These two countries have little to no immigration and have no plan to increase it.

 

And Japan's economy is shrinking or certainly trending that way.

Japan's population structure was shifting and becoming increasingly elderly. Aging meant slower growth of the labor force. Declining fertility combined with aging eventually reduced the domestic saving that supported economic expansion during the rapid economic growth period.

https://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/events/why_did_japan_stop_growing#:~:text=Takeo Hoshi-,The Japanese economy has been stagnating for almost two decades.,-During this event

Meanwhile in S Korea...

KDI warns of zero growth in 2050 without structural reforms

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221108000650

Quote

2. Can you give a name?

Bloomberg...Royal Bank of Canada...Century Initiative...Here's a G&M article on the topic.

https://archive.ph/jNk8J

The bottom line is that every economy on the entire planet has been operating on the assumption of endless growth without which we can't apparently survive.  I don't believe it myself because I think it's just a matter of figuring out how to do so.  The issue is finding the will to do so.

Edited November 21, 2023 by eyeball

[QuebecOverCanada]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Norway's gdp has also been flat as hell for decades now btw.  If you thought they were doing well - no, not really.

Canada GDP per capita in 2021: 51K

Norway GDP per capita in 2021: 89K

Norway is one of the most prosperous nation on Earth as I'm writing this. It has been the case for decades. It is doing extremely well and is going to well in the future as they have good management. When you reach the ceiling, it's tough to grow even more.

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it leads to stagnation of real estate

That is an extremely good thing, probably the best argument for a decrease in immigration. A housing crash is way overdue in Canada.

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it creates very serious problems with providing social services and pensions to older people, it can have strong health care ramifications, there are other problems

This isn't true, as productivity is increasing a lot. Just to give you an example, when the first pensions were established in the XXth Century, we had 40 workers to 1 retiree. It has shrunk tremendously, we have 2 workers for 1 retiree.

We have computers, robots, progress. The system isn't collapsing.

By increasing the demand for social services like we do in Canada, we're flooding our system. The idlotic rise of immigration targets and the sheer increase of the number of people living here is not a good thing, as we're breaking the fragile equilibrium we have.

[QuebecOverCanada]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

And Japan's economy is shrinking or certainly trending that way.

Japan's population structure was shifting and becoming increasingly elderly. Aging meant slower growth of the labor force. Declining fertility combined with aging eventually reduced the domestic saving that supported economic expansion during the rapid economic growth period.

https://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/events/why_did_japan_stop_growing#:~:text=Takeo Hoshi-,The Japanese economy has been stagnating for almost two decades.,-During this event

Meanwhile in S Korea...

KDI warns of zero growth in 2050 without structural reforms

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221108000650

Bloomberg...Royal Bank of Canada...Century Initiative...Here's a G&M article on the topic.

https://archive.ph/jNk8J

The bottom line is that every economy on the entire planet has been operating on the assumption of endless growth without which we can't apparently survive.  I don't believe it myself because I think it's just a matter of figuring out how to do so.  The issue is finding the will to do so.

Canada, despite the extremely high immigration levels, has about the same growth as Japan and SK. And those two countries have a much lower inflation rate.

Canada's GDP per capita growth is lower than other advances economies and the US who sustain a much lower immigration rate.

Real GDP per capita is expected to go down in the next years in Canada as a result of the pie shares being shared with more and more individuals, and is expected to stagnate as best starting in 2025.

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh.  If you bring in more bakers, the amount of Pie goes up.  C'mon - at least make this a challenge  

If we welcomed the new Leonardo Da Vincis I would agree.

But we're shipping low wage migrants that will work at Tim Hortons or as Security Guards sharing a 1 bedroom basement with two other families at this moment.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Real GDP per capita is expected to go down in the next years in Canada as a result of the pie shares being shared with more and more individuals, and is expected to stagnate as best starting in 2025.

And it'll be much much worse without a growing population to fuel economic growth - to make the pie bigger so there's still the same or more to go around, or so conventional wisdom has it.

Ultimately I'm on your side, we need to learn to do better with fewer people.  That said, we'll probably swell to 100 million or more anyway just on account of climate change migrations that'll be occurring around the planet. 

[QuebecOverCanada]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And it'll be much much worse without a growing population to fuel economic growth - to make the pie bigger so there's still the same or more to go around, or so conventional wisdom has it.

Ever heard about the Laffer curve in your macroeconomics classes?

Apply the principle for taxes to immigration. If we have too much immigration, the benefits of immigration goes down and is actually hurting the economy.

When there is so much competition just for housing, it is billions that are lost in rents/mortgages that would be invested in other, productive parts of the economy. When there are too many immigrants, salaries are going down. The toll on the demand for public services is tremendous.

I'm not in favor of 0 immigration, just like I'm not in the favor of 0 taxes. But too much of both is poison.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

But too much of both is poison.

Too much of many things is unhealthy - as I pointed out human population on Earth was fingered as such decades ago.

We're coming up against natural and man-made limits to sustainability everywhere on multiple levels.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Canada GDP per capita in 2021: 51K

Norway GDP per capita in 2021: 89K

Norway is one of the most prosperous nation on Earth as I'm writing this. It has been the case for decades. It is doing extremely well and is going to well in the future as they have good management. When you reach the ceiling, it's tough to grow even more.

Norway isn't prosperous. Norway nationalized it's oil and lives on that. That's why it's gdp is flatlined,

Take oil away and norway is broke.

It's like alberta.  Alberta without oil is poor as hell.

You're pretending that it's all wealth generated by the nation itself and it's not. That's why it's not the same thing.

And the fact that our gdp per capita is tanking right now doesn't make anyone else's good

 

Quote

 

Canada, despite the extremely high immigration levels, has about the same growth as Japan and SK. And those two countries have a much lower inflation rate.

Canada's GDP per capita growth is lower than other advances economies and the US who sustain a much lower immigration rate.

 

You don't understand this stuff do you.  Think about what you just said. "despite high immigration levels' ....  did you mean BECAUSE of?

Think it through again. If you really need me to i'll take the time to explain it.

1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

If we welcomed the new Leonardo Da Vincis I would agree.

But we're shipping low wage migrants that will work at Tim Hortons or as Security Guards sharing a 1 bedroom basement with two other families at this moment.

Sure.  but that's not what we were discussing - we were discussing if countries need positive or negative population growth. You can't just flip the topic like that and start arguing something else  

From about 2006 -2008 or so we about perfected how to bring in successful immigrants and we should have built on that. Justin has thrown that out the window to bring in as many as humanly possible and that's just stupid.  Justin has to go, and immigration levels need to be considered in relation to our ability to absorb and house/feed/take care of  immigrants.  Can't have more immigrants than we have houses for them to live in.

But - while it is important to get our levels back on track to a useful and sane number, the truth is we do need a certain amount of positive population growth.

[QuebecOverCanada]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Norway isn't prosperous.

Bro...

Bruh... I should add.

Bruuuuuuuh, even.

Bruuuuuuuuuh wtf.