What policies would YOU propose on both a Federal and Provinical level to aid the housing crisis?

[suds]

We're on the verge of one of the largest transfers of wealth ever witnessed in the western world when the baby boomers start dying off in mass droves. How will that affect the housing market if we also cut back on immigration?

[herbie]

I could just repost what ArmyGuy did. Been posting the same thing myself for years.

You can build more homes in Van/TO but they're never gonna be affordable.

Easier to find or make a job where  it can be affordable.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I could just repost what ArmyGuy did. Been posting the same thing myself for years.

You can build more homes in Van/TO but they're never gonna be affordable.

Easier to find or make a job where  it can be affordable.

You can repeat the lie all you want - but at the end of the day if you build more homes than demand increases then prices go down.  That's how it works, that how it worked yesterday and how it will work tomorrow.

If you're really smart you tackle it from both ends and reduce population growth AND build more homes.

Like ... this really is economics 101.

[Ronaldo_]

Interesting responses. Thanks guys.

[herbie]

And you're free to call the obvious a lie and live in a dreamworld of trickle down magic.

Move. Ya wouldn't even be here to gripe if your Grampa didn't have the guts to.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

And you're free to call the obvious a lie and live in a dreamworld of trickle down magic.

You have done smoked yourself retarded hippie  

The "obvious' is that if you dump tonnes of product onto the market prices go down. That's what's obvious. When it comes to real estate even a small increase in product can have a downward effect on prices.

I don't know why you don't believe that is true.

Nor is it' "trickle down" anything. Supply and demand has a powerful impact on prices.  That's an established fact. "trickle down" isn't even a real thing, it's a phrase someone coined years ago to poorly describe elements of keysian economics and now the left just uses it for anthing that doesn't involve increased spending and taxes.

 

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL _ well first off it doesn't say anywhere there that i claimed he denied it 

Oh, I see.  You didn't claim he "denied" it, you just claimed he "doesn't think it's true".  🙄

On 5/1/2024 at 3:35 PM, CdnFox said:

IF you flood the market with supply it impacts price.

But i love that you think that somehow isn't true    Wow.

Thanks for providing yet another example of why nobody can take you seriously.  👌

[herbie]

People who've never owned real property find the market hard to understand. You don't need to "believe" anything.
Easier for them to follow totally imaginary value like cryptocurrency. And confuse cliches for actual truths.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Oh, I see.  You didn't claim he "denied" it, you just claimed he "doesn't think it's true".  🙄

 

Sure - and he doesn't.  He's still arguing it isn't over in another thread.  

But that came much later. What i said is he needed to have it explained to him. He doesnt' get it. He doesn't understand it. He's not even that he denies it, he just doesn't get it or think that i sounds like a real thing.  Call him 'skeptcal' if you want to be charitable

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

hanks for providing yet another example of why nobody can take you seriously.

ROFLMAO -  Ok there robosmith

Thanks for providing yet another example of  why eveyone laughs at you for jumping into a thread hoping to attack me and looking like an 1diot

In the end i was right and he was wrong. If you dump tonnes of homes onto the market - either country wide or locally - the price will go down and many more people will be able to afford them.So your entire involvement here was based on the fact that i was right but you don't like it.  LOL - you're a living joke kid

Edited May 3 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

52 minutes ago, herbie said:

People who've never owned real property find the market hard to understand. You don't need to "believe" anything.

Thats why we have realtors - who spend their days trying to make sure people understand and get into the market without undue stress.

But they have to be able to afford the homes and that only comes with increased supply.

 

Quote

Easier for them to follow totally imaginary value like cryptocurrency. And confuse cliches for actual truths.

How is crypto currency easier?

[herbie]

The problem really isn't a shortage of houses, it's a shortage of money.
If people had a $250K deposit in the bank and could afford the other $750K @ 6%, they'd be building homes like mad.

 

[herbie]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Thats why we have realtors - who spend their days trying to make sure people understand and get into the market without undue stress.

Just like WalMart is in business to save you money, right? Have another glass of KoolAid...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

The problem really isn't a shortage of houses, it's a shortage of money.

 

The problem is entirely a shortage of houses.  Period.  IF there were more money but still a shortage of houses, prices would just raise till that money was consumed.  That's how it works -  if supply is lower than demand prices rise, if supply is higher than demand prices fall.

 

Quote

If people had a $250K deposit in the bank and could afford the other $750K @ 6%, they'd be building homes like mad.

What homes? There aren't any for people to 'buy like mad.

So - what would happen is that  home prices would immediately shoot up till you needed 500 k in deposits and 1.4 million to buy the home.  Or more.

Rents would be the same btw - they would go up accordingly.

It's hilarious that @Moonbox tried so hard to argue that you didn't need something  as obvious as that explained to you - yet here you STILL are denying that more homes would mean lower prices or that a shortage drives the prices beyond what people can afford.

We.... don't... have... enough..... homes.   IF you have MORE homes, prices will fall and people will be able to afford them. IF you have LESS homes then prices go up. That's why prices are high - we don't have enough homes given our population growth

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Just like WalMart is in business to save you money, right?

No... no, walmart is nothing like Real Estate agents.  More like how we have lawyers to help people navigate law, we have doctors to help people navigate medicine,  we have plumbers to help people keep their plumbing working. We have experts available in life to help us address complex issues that we personally may not understand.  (like the concept of supply and demand and its affect on prices for example   )

"Walmart" just sells stuff. That's not the same thing as an expert helping you address issues. 

I'll just add that to the list of things i can't believe you needed explained to you.

[Moonbox]

On 5/3/2024 at 11:22 PM, CdnFox said:

It's hilarious that @Moonbox tried so hard to argue that you didn't need something  as obvious as that explained to you - yet here you STILL are denying that more homes would mean lower prices or that a shortage drives the prices beyond what people can afford.

I must admit at this point I have no idea wtf he is talking about.  I might have to give you this one.  😐

On 5/3/2024 at 11:25 PM, CdnFox said:

No... no, walmart is nothing like Real Estate agents.  More like how we have lawyers to help people navigate law, we have doctors to help people navigate medicine,  we have plumbers to help people keep their plumbing working. We have experts available in life to help us address complex issues that we personally may not understand.  (like the concept of supply and demand and its affect on prices for example   )

I would say Real Estate agents have more in common with walmart employees or car salesmen - generally the same levels of education levels and credentials (basically none).  It's an easy pivot from a bartending or waitressing job for the highschool-educated.  You'd be hard pressed to find a profession with less fiduciary responsibility to clients, and more prone to conflicts of interest than realtors.  Never in history has a less qualified group made more money for less work...except maybe the federal public service?  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I must admit at this point I have no idea wtf he is talking about.  I might have to give you this one.  😐

Well lets just agree it's his fault, call it a draw and move on   LOL

Quote

I would say Real Estate agents have more in common with walmart employees or car salesmen - generally the same levels of education levels and credentials (basically none).  It's an easy pivot from a bartending or waitressing job for the highschool-educated.  You'd be hard pressed to find a profession with less fiduciary responsibility to clients, and more prone to conflicts of interest than realtors.  Never in history has a less qualified group made more money for less work...except maybe the federal public service?  

I'd give you that 15 years ago or more, and maybe some provinces are different, but I can tell you in British Columbia it's really not true. For years real estate agents were salesman. Their 'knoweldge' was how to fill out an offer of purchase and sale.

However nowadays with the requirements imposed by fintrac and the need to determine who the actual beneficiary of the property is and with all the ethics people breathing down your back as well as increasingly difficult financial circumstances  the client will be navigated through and an effective end to dual agency, as well as massive changes to strata law that realtors must know to advise their clients properly,  it's a much much different world. 

And that's before you get to the skill part. There's a reason why 20 percent of the people make 80 percent of the money. You're still paying for them to be good marketers or for them to know the market value of the property you're buying and give you good advice

And the industry journal is filled each time it comes out with the lists of agents who did something wrong and either got a serious penalty and suspended trading for a while or lost their licenses entirely. They can easily face criminal charges if they deliberately bypass some of the laws.

It's actually hard to be a successful Realtor these days. And there's a lot more training than there used to be. I'm not a realtor but my situation requires i have a very strong understanding of their training requirements.

It'd say it's probsably a step up from walmart greeter anyway 

[Moonbox]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'd give you that 15 years ago or more, and maybe some provinces are different, but I can tell you in British Columbia it's really not true. 

I don't know anything about how it works in BC.  In Ontario getting your realtor's license was like getting your SmartServe certificate up until a  few years ago.  It's "harder" now, but only for the former waitresses and bartenders who find grade 10 math challenging.  Try an OREA practice exam if you don't believe me.  

Anyways, dual agency is still allowed in Ontario, as is blind bidding.  This would be criminal in other professions, but the realty industry has no fiduciary duty to clients here and calling the regulatory oversight "lax" would be generous.  

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's actually hard to be a successful Realtor these days. And there's a lot more training than there used to be. I'm not a realtor but my situation requires i have a very strong understanding of their training requirements.

It's harder now, and likely to get harder, but the industry is still a joke.  We have something like 100,000 realtors in Ontario, and if we lost half of them nobody would even notice.  The most challenging part of the job is the marketing and the hustle of building a clientele.  Kudos to diligent, conscientious realtors who rise to the top, but what the majority of them are contributing to the average real-estate transaction is a joke considering the houses practically sell themselves.  

This is a profession that will see increasing obsolescence over the next 10-20 years - never fully gone, but maturing technology and consumer knowledge will replace what realtors are offering for most basic transactions (basically an MLS listing, lol).  

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't know anything about how it works in BC.  In Ontario getting your realtor's license was like getting your SmartServe certificate up until a  few years ago.  It's "harder" now, but only for the former waitresses and bartenders who find grade 10 math challenging.  Try an OREA practice exam if you don't believe me.  

Anyways, dual agency is still allowed in Ontario, as is blind bidding.  This would be criminal in other professions, but the realty industry has no fiduciary duty to clients here and calling the regulatory oversight "lax" would be generous.  

Hmmm. Sounds like it's not really a difference of opinion but a difference in circumstance then .
 

Quote

 

It's harder now, and likely to get harder, but the industry is still a joke.  We have something like 100,000 realtors in Ontario, and if we lost half of them nobody would even notice.  The most challenging part of the job is the marketing and the hustle of building a clientele.  Kudos to diligent, conscientious realtors who rise to the top, but what the majority of them are contributing to the average real-estate transaction is a joke considering the houses practically sell themselves.  

This is a profession that will see increasing obsolescence over the next 10-20 years - never fully gone, but maturing technology and consumer knowledge will replace what realtors are offering for most basic transactions (basically an MLS listing, lol).  

 

Possibly.   The exam here is harder.  The failure rate for first timers is about 45 percent. And that only drops to about 30 -35  with multiple tries added.  So only about 70 percent of people who try for their license test will pass even with multiple tries and it's about 6 months of full time study to be ready for it. Weeds out the 'waitresses'.

It  used to be worse here too - and i used to run into a  LOT of very uneducated realtors who got their clients into a lot of trouble.  Now you see a lot more education and the buyers are better prepared for what they're buying - most of the time. There's the bad apples out there.

I don't know if it'll become obsolete or not. We've seen the 'discount bulk services' like 1 percent realty where they do minimal work but take much lower commissions, and the stats say people who try to sell on their own wind up getting significantly less for their homes.  And I will say this -  a well trianed realtor doing their job correctly can bring a LOT of value to a buyer or seller if they're doing their job. 

Of course not all do

 

[exPS]

On 4/27/2024 at 10:31 PM, Ronaldo_ said:

Title says it all.

I personally thinking reducing immigration would be a start, but it would also help to reduce zoning and building height regulations especially for Urban Centres. Greater subsidies of public housing would honestly be a lot better too.

Exactly on everything except subsidies.

Incredibly we have governments that like to put the roof on before they pour a foundation. I for one, never voted for him in the last three elections.

If you are going to have immigration, you take people in that are useful with experience that we need now and that can be put to work right away in a permanent position, not some government make-work project. Anything outside of that you are putting the costs on the backs of tax payers.