Population Growth In Canada Is Outpacing Housing Completions By 40%

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Bro...

Bruh... I should add.

Bruuuuuuuh, even.

Bruuuuuuuuuh wtf.

Well that certainly is a potent argument   I found the Bruuuuuuuuuh  particularly compelling. You attended Laval i assume  

Denmark has always had money from energy directly and indirectly and because of it's small geographic size it costs less to run the place.  THat with higher taxation and lower spending keeps it out of debt - which means it has more of it's revenues to spend on things and less on interest.  Smart enough, like i said alberta is the same concept. Imagine the rest of canada wasn't aroudn to tax them, and had zero debt - alberta woudl be stupid rich.

Yet their gdp is a flat line.

THey're not really prosperous. They've been smart and it's a cheap country due to size and lack of indigenous population so they have enough to be quite comfortable but they have what they have - it hasn't gotten radically better. It kind of is what it is,  And they've been playing around with ideas to stimulate more business growth

They're sort of weirdly like a retiree

[sharkman]

On 11/20/2023 at 10:47 AM, CdnFox said:

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.

WTH?

So you’re finally concerned about a housing shortage, now that the slow thinking News Media have discovered it?

Last week I said this in one of your threads, and you ignored it:

“The only reason there are not enough homes being built(think high rise condos) is the massive immigration program that the Justin has been spearheading.  He now wants to bring in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.  After bringing in Syrians and Ukrainians.  

The inflation is completely self inflicted.”

You really need to develop your critical thinking skills.

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by sharkman

[myata]

Canada unbounded.. from the reason and reality itself. Let's see what's next. Anyone excited?

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, sharkman said:

WTH?

So you’re finally concerned about a housing shortage, now that the slow thinking News Media have discovered it?

 

Literally posted about it almost every week i've been here. Do a search. You're an 1diot.

Quote

Last week I said this in one of your threads, and you ignored it:

May not have noticed that post, or just thought it was boring.  I don't reply to every post in every thread i post.

Quote

 

“The only reason there are not enough homes being built(think high rise condos) is the massive immigration program that the Justin has been spearheading.  He now wants to bring in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.  After bringing in Syrians and Ukrainians.  

The inflation is completely self inflicted.”

 

Ahh.  well in that case it was because you're wrong and i probably didn't feel like correcting you.  But if you insist....

Immigraion is not the cause of our housing issues. As i have stated frequently in the billion or so threads i've started on the subject, sudden increases in immigration make it worse temporarily for sure, but they're not the cause. The cause is that for many reasons developers are seriously discouraged from building enough homes, and as things stand no matter what our population growth is, if we have population growth at all then the developers will always build slightly too few homes for our needs. It may take a year or three to adjust to sudden changes but it does.

So if we slash immigration it'll help a small amount for about 2 - 3 years and then we're back in the same boat.

We have to make a series of structural changes  to make it worth building 'empty homes'.

 

Quote

You really need to develop your critical thinking skills.

Oh - i think i passed your current level when i graduated grade 6 or so    Try to keep up

[sharkman]

On 11/20/2023 at 11:03 AM, eyeball said:

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.

So according to your view, what number is the threshold for over population for the planet?  Do you know that some extremists think 500 million is the max?

[CdnFox]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2286312515635

Federal housing money coming too late, advocates say

The government committed $16 billion for rental and social housing in Tuesday's fall fiscal update, but funding won't start until at least 2025.

These are loans btw - they're not 'giving' the money, these will be low interest loans.  AND - the developers may not be interested in building the projects by then.

For those who don't watch the video, this is VERY badly received by the low income groups that were hoping to get some projects started - and it's yet another promise delayed till after the next election.

The cbc talking head they brought in to try to sell it to canadians tried to put a good face on it (" You know I think this shows the gov't is hurting as much as Canadians are".)  but still had to admit this was bad.

This will not be a popular fiscal update.  And it's not good news AT ALL for the housing situation. Low interest loans is not a bad idea but if you don't get the money out for another 3 years or more IF AT ALL then it's not going to help in time.

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, sharkman said:

So according to your view, what number is the threshold for over population for the planet?  Do you know that some extremists think 500 million is the max?

Some think 100 million is the optimal number. It depends on how big the impact is to the environment.  I doubt the planet could sustain 100 million people for very long if everyone insisted on having a fleet of vehicles, their own jumbo jet, a fancy yacht and their own luxury high-rise.

Technology is a big factor - in the future technology could be so advanced that people can take care of their own needs on their own, where lifespans are measured in centuries or longer and our population could shrink to mere hundreds of thousands.  There are plenty of species that have persisted in the world longer than us with comparable numbers.

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This will not be a popular fiscal update.  And it's not good news AT ALL for the housing situation. Low interest loans is not a bad idea but if you don't get the money out for another 3 years or more IF AT ALL then it's not going to help in time.

It's a complete waste of time. Way to little way to late.

People are simply going to take matters into their own hands before long. I see a lot of by-law officers being told to go screw themselves when dispatched to shut down illegal/non-compliant rentals and backyard trailer parks that are going to be the norm in the future. Junky old boats to liveaboard are becoming more popular all the time.  Around here people just nod politely and carry on and finally the municipality or whoever has little choice but to legalize stuff or ignore it - like more and more around the country they lack the resources for cracking down on anything but the most egregious violations of codes and regulations.

This is probably a pretty good depiction of what's coming.

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's a complete waste of time. Way to little way to late.

People are simply going to take matters into their own hands before long. I see a lot of by-law officers being told to go screw themselves when dispatched to shut down illegal/non-compliant rentals and backyard trailer parks that are going to be the norm in the future. Junky old boats to liveaboard are becoming more popular all the time.  Around here people just nod politely and carry on and finally the municipality or whoever has little choice but to legalize stuff or ignore it - like more and more around the country they lack the resources for cracking down on anything but the most egregious violations of codes and regulations.

This is probably a pretty good depiction of what's coming.

 

I fear you are not wrong.

[sharkman]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Some think 100 million is the optimal number. It depends on how big the impact is to the environment.  I doubt the planet could sustain 100 million people for very long if everyone insisted on having a fleet of vehicles, their own jumbo jet, a fancy yacht and their own luxury high-rise.

Technology is a big factor - in the future technology could be so advanced that people can take care of their own needs on their own, where lifespans are measured in centuries or longer and our population could shrink to mere hundreds of thousands.  There are plenty of species that have persisted in the world longer than us with comparable numbers.

Well I have good news for you, in regards to vehicles.  A new anti gravity technology is going to transform the automobile.  Zero emissions.  In this new reality, the population argument will be antiquated.  As for the rest of it, being armed is probably not a bad idea.

[WestCanMan]

On 11/20/2023 at 10:47 AM, CdnFox said:

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.

The solution in BC: next June they're going to change the building codes across the province so that any lot in a community of 5K or more can have 3 units (main home and 2 suites). If the lot is over 3,000 sq ft they can have 4, if they're close to major transit (skytrain, etc), 6  units. 

The municipalities will have no say in it if it passes. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The solution in BC: next June they're going to change the building codes across the province so that any lot in a community of 5K or more can have 3 units (main home and 2 suites). If the lot is over 3,000 sq ft they can have 4, if they're close to major transit (skytrain, etc), 6  units. 

The municipalities will have no say in it if it passes. 

I mean it's not a bad idea, but that's not going to make developers eager to build more houses. It's just going to mean they could if they wanted to.  But they'll have to do something to make them want to

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I mean it's not a bad idea, but that's not going to make developers eager to build more houses. It's just going to mean they could if they wanted to.  But they'll have to do something to make them want to

In a lot of instances it just gives people an opportunity to legalize the suites they already have, but they won't, because they don't want to pay the taxes on the income from their suites. 

It will get a few people to create new legal suites, but it will make it ugly AF here, because there will be an increased number of off-street parking spots required for the new suites. You'll see a lot of places where people's front or back yards will have wider driveways, etc. There are places in east Langley where the front yard is basically a parking lot. 

Parking will still be a disaster on the streets though. That's what already happened here in some of the areas where they have a lot of carriage homes. People also suited their basements, then they have one lot with 6 or more cars associated with it.

I have a friend who lived in one of the carriage home areas in Cloverdale, you couldn't get a spot within 2 blocks of his house on a Friday night.

[DUI_Offender]

On 11/20/2023 at 8:36 PM, eyeball said:

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.

 

Like whom?

 

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Like whom?

 

Like the ones I listed above.

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

https://archive.ph/jNk8J

[QuebecOverCanada]

Despite an immigration to extreme levels, the Canadian GDP managed to fall by a lot.

The pie shares are becoming thinner and thinner in Canada.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-30/canada-economy-surprisingly-shrank-1-1-in-third-quarter

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Despite an immigration to extreme levels, the Canadian GDP managed to fall by a lot.

The pie shares are becoming thinner and thinner in Canada.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-30/canada-economy-surprisingly-shrank-1-1-in-third-quarter

It's definitely not good when you've got a growing population and negative growth in the economy.  That is presumably a temporary thing though.  And realistically some would argue that the downturn would be worse without the immigrants thus the pie would be even smaller.  I havent run the numbers for recent periods  so i don't really know -  i kind of doubt it but maybe

At the end of the day tho, you're thinking about the pie but you're forgetting about how much pie it takes to live now. Inflation 'shrinks' the pie all on it's own and there's zero doubt that inflation in excess of our ability to provide new homes and services leads to severe inflation.  And that's what we're seeing now.

Immigration tends to cause the pie to grow, but if it's in excess of what we can cope with and absorb then it shrinks the pie through inflation. The pie itself may be bigger but you need more just to get by so effectively you have less

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And realistically some would argue that the downturn would be worse without the immigrants thus the pie would be even smaller

?

<Immigration was not even tried! Let's try harder! If we didn't have those levels, we'd be even poorer! We must go forward!> is the new <Communism was not even tried! Let's try harder! If we didn't adopted it, we'd be even poorer!>.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

At the end of the day tho, you're thinking about the pie but you're forgetting about how much pie it takes to live now. Inflation 'shrinks' the pie all on it's own and there's zero doubt that inflation in excess of our ability to provide new homes and services leads to severe inflation.  And that's what we're seeing now.

Inflation being inflated by... increasing the consumer base ... inflated by... immigration.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

?

<Immigration was not even tried! Let's try harder! If we didn't have those levels, we'd be even poorer! We must go forward!> is the new <Communism was not even tried! Let's try harder! If we didn't adopted it, we'd be even poorer!>.

 

Ok ok - settle down - take your pills  

Its a complex topic and you could make the argument. I'm sorry if you don't like  that but it's a simple fact. That doesn't make the argument correct, and it wouldn't address the long term problems that come with it, but it would be a potentially defenseable argument. Doesn't mean i agree with it but it would be a point that would need to be addressed.

Quote

Inflation being inflated by... increasing the consumer base ... inflated by... immigration.

I literally just said that.

So - while someone could say that immigration increases the economy you would have to point out that even if that's true its' also having a major impact on inflation, which reduces the value of the economy even if it increases, so is the 'gain' to the ecomomy worth the 'pain' of inflation devaluing the economy.

My guess is oh hell no, but my point is that would be the discussion and both sides would have to make their case.