|
MeinPanzer posted:I actually don't think this is correct. Based on my knowledge of lots of boomer family and family friends in Vancouver and Victoria, few people who own their homes debt-free and are retired or are planning to retire soon have any intent to sell, because they know it's impossible to buy anywhere nearby and want to be near friends and family where they already live. They also aren't going to reverse mortgage their house, because they don't want to saddle their children with debt when they die. Couple things; That was in response to a post about people with fully paid off loans getting skittish about house prices going down, not about new development. Also reverse mortgages don’t saddle any heirs with debt; debt cannot be inherited, it must be settled by the estate. Any difference between debt and estate gets eaten by the lender.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
qhat posted:Couple things; That was in response to a post about people with fully paid off loans getting skittish about house prices going down, not about new development. Also reverse mortgages don’t saddle any heirs with debt; debt cannot be inherited, it must be settled by the estate. Any difference between debt and estate gets eaten by the lender. Sorry, should have clarified that they don't want to take on a reverse mortgage because they want their children to inherit their property, given that it's often the only way for young people to make any real progress in buying a property themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:They also aren't going to reverse mortgage their house, because they don't want to saddle their children with debt when they die. This is nonsensical. A reverse mortgage doesn't pass debt on to children. In fact the evidence supports the position that boomers hate their kids and intend to leave them nothing but a burning world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 09:05
|
|
|
Mantle posted:This is nonsensical. A reverse mortgage doesn't pass debt on to children. In fact the evidence supports the position that boomers hate their kids and intend to leave them nothing but a burning world. See my above clarification. Also, I know that this thread is peak cynicism and all that, but the reality as I know it is that this definitely isn't the case. Most BC boomers I know who had comfortable middle class jobs and have retired/are about to retire with a decent pension have been made keenly aware of the housing crisis through their children's experience and plan for their children to inherit their properties. In fact, I know several millennials who have talked openly with their still relatively young boomer parents about moving into their properties in the medium term so that they can both provide them care and transition directly into living there once they inherit them. Boomers may not think much or care about everyone else, hence the opposition to any kind of structural or widespread change in housing, but most of them do want to help out their children and grandchildren.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 09:37
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Actual change might actually be somewhat approaching maybe happening I am not holding my breath unless they get rid of setbacks. Also I cannot wait for people to complain about neighbourhood character when they live in an area that looks like this:  Or an area that looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Brick in Vancouver lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
leftist heap posted:This has been discussed before but I can’t be arsed to find it. IIRC the number of multiple homeowners is actually very low. A huge chunk of people who own any property in Toronto own more than one. And the reason people are taking out reverse mortgages is because CPP, OAS, and/or their retirement accounts aren't anywhere near adequate to fund the lifestyle they just know they're entitled to in retirement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:A huge chunk of people who own any property in Toronto own more than one. Failed millionaires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:See my above clarification. I don't believe the motivation is "we need to pass a house down so the kids have a market-linked asset", they just need somewhere to live while they spend whatever liquid assets they have in retirement. They see the house (or whatever's left of it in the end) as fair game for inheritance, but the cash they have on hand, they intend to spend it. I'll bet that most boomers will leave close to nothing to their kids in the end; probably not even enough for the coffin and headstone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:. Over 30% of Canadian (boomer) households in 2016 have a fully paid primary home. What's the LTV figure for their HELOCs, I wonder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:What's the LTV figure for their HELOCs, I wonder. Do people say they are mortgage free and also have a balance on their HELOC. Cause that makes zero sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Humanity elects con men and is in the process of gutting the habitability of the planet. Rationalizing away technicalities of debt isn't that hard to accept imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
anecdotally my boss announced he has to sell his investment condo due to interest rates my friend who owns condo as primary residence is now living with her parents cuz she has to rent it out to pay the mortgage
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
I would agree with MeinPanzer in that I think most boomers are looking at their homes and communities entirely emotionally. They're opposed to any change because they like their neighbourhoods as they are and do not want any change to their lifestyles, whether it be more traffic, more noise, less parking, different people, anything. The value of their homes is not relevant at all because 1) they're not selling ever and 2) if they're tapping their equity, what they can tap is "enough" so the notion of their home values going up due to rezoning/redevelopment or anything is not relevant. tbh even around death and inheritance I suspect most boomers are clueless to the notion that their kids may be delighted to sell the family home at a high price to a developer to build an apartment, emotionally thinking that surely their children will want to keep the family home as is forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:tbh even around death and inheritance I suspect most boomers are clueless to the notion that their kids may be delighted to sell the family home at a high price to a developer to build an apartment, emotionally thinking that surely their children will want to keep the family home as is forever. Do you really believe this? Most Canadians of retirement age don’t have enough cash savings to retire comfortably, or even have a notion on what that number is. Whether they want to or not, they are likely to end up tapping the equity eitherway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
Honestly my sample size of boomers with homes is pretty small, so I have no idea.  I do think boomers are in love with their homes and will hold on at all costs. I think Canadian boomers could well be quite satisfied to age in place on a tight budget, puttering around in their gardens. Perhaps not the sort of jet set retirement they imagined, but at least they have their home and their things. One trend worth keeping an eye on is the entire notion of downsizing being abandoned. As available housing is scarce and has inflated in values so much, the value in selling a detached home and shifting to a townhome or condo is decreasing. This is something I have heard anecdotally from my mother speaking about what her friends are doing. Boomers won the lottery with their big detached homes inflating in price to $2M but now they're looking at the options available for downsizing, and recognizing that maybe a 1000 sqft condo for $1.2M along with $600 monthly fees doesn't feel like quite so much a bargain. Objectively it remains a huge windfall, but the value just doesn't seem there and the lifestyle tradeoff feels too great. Accordingly they're thinking, maybe I'll just stay in my detached house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
My parents downsized from a house in the burbs to a downtown condo and they're loving it. Minus staying out to three in the morning, old people love the same poo poo we young'uns do! A walkable lifestyle is all the more tempting when you're retired and you can smoke a joint or open a bottle of wine whenever the gently caress you like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Honestly my sample size of boomers with homes is pretty small, so I have no idea. Yep, this is absolutely my understanding of most of the BC boomers I know. Their last surviving parents probably passed away sometime in the last decade, and so if they were going to take advantage of any inheritance to move and upgrade they would have done so then. Now barring some major disruption they’re in the houses they want to be in and would rather make other sacrifices than have to move somewhere else. I’ve heard the same spiel from multiple boomers about how they thought about downsizing and casually looked at their options but “can you believe how little you can get for X these days?” (Lol.) The only boomer I know who has actually downsized was forced to when she got divorced from her husband and ended up moving in with her nonagenarian mother after being evicted from a long-term rental. I do, however, know several boomers bringing their children into their house or property in some way, which was rare for white families when I was growing up.d
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 07:31
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Boomers won the lottery with their big detached homes inflating in price to $2M but now they're looking at the options available for downsizing, and recognizing that maybe a 1000 sqft condo for $1.2M along with $600 monthly fees doesn't feel like quite so much a bargain. Objectively it remains a huge windfall, but the value just doesn't seem there and the lifestyle tradeoff feels too great. Accordingly they're thinking, maybe I'll just stay in my detached house. This pretty well describes my parents. They’re open in theory to downsizing now as empty nesters but the value, size and quality of condo options have turned them off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 12:52
|
|
|
Lain Iwakura posted:I am not holding my breath unless they get rid of setbacks. Whoah, these are like Tier 3 Vancouver Specials. I never really went to these Vancouver SFH areas in my decades living there so I never saw things like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
My parents nicely renovated their house so they're obviously staying in place forever. This has me somewhat concerned given that they live in an absolutely car dependent suburb of Vancouver and there is no grocery store or any amenities within walking distance. Seriously they're just hand waiving assuming/praying that we'll have self driving cars by the time things become an issue and they wouldn't be able to drive anymore. In contrast my aunt and uncle did aggressively downsize, selling a really nice bungalow in west vancouver for a fortune as the market was heating up, maybe 2015ish?, and turning around and buying a ~1000sqft apartment in Yaletown, pocketing the change. Reading between the lines of what my parents have said I think they more needed that delta gap of equity, which maybe explains why they went for a 1000 sqft place and not a 1200 sqft place. Ultimately I think they will have made the better choice. Speaking with them they love how they can walk out their door and pick up groceries go to a cool bakery and restaurants etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Someone was sharing data on home ownership in the Victoria region and found oak bay has a huge majority of homeowners with no outstanding mortgages. The average oak bay resident pays no rent or mortgage. It was actually remarkably high all through Victoria, just oak bay was the high point. Gonzales area also has a very high amount of fully paid homeowners. This demographic tends to be the biggest nimby's too. They just can't at all fathom what its like to be paying through the nose for housing. They bought their house in 1980 for 90,000, have their tiny mortgage fully paid out, and don't get what all the fuss is about. What I found shocking though were the amount of folks with no mortgage that were not retired. Folks in their 40's and so. Just rich enough to pay cash for a Victoria house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Someone was sharing data on home ownership in the Victoria region and found oak bay has a huge majority of homeowners with no outstanding mortgages. The average oak bay resident pays no rent or mortgage. It was actually remarkably high all through Victoria, just oak bay was the high point. Gonzales area also has a very high amount of fully paid homeowners. This demographic tends to be the biggest nimby's too. They just can't at all fathom what its like to be paying through the nose for housing. They bought their house in 1980 for 90,000, have their tiny mortgage fully paid out, and don't get what all the fuss is about. the aristocracy is in the majority now you don't even need to be born into the right family, you just had to be born before 1975
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
Typo posted:the aristocracy is in the majority now It's amazing how true this is. Like none of these people were rich, their entire wealth comes from winning the housing lottery. My friend's dad who owns 2 houses and a few investment condos around town was just a mid-level government office worker, he just started leveraging his housing equity hard in the 90's and started buying up investment condos and flipping them or holding them to rent. Another couple I know lives in a 2.5 million dollar waterfront house along Dallas Rd, they got there entirely from housing lottery. He was surveyor for ministry of transport and she was a school teacher, very mid-level jobs. But once again, they sold their cheap starter house at the right time, inherited her parents house, fixed it up and sold both after renting them for a while. Bought 3 condos by the navy base, flipped them for a huge windfall. Bought 5 pre-sale condos in a downtown building and currently rent them all out since the mid 2000's. Sold a couple of them recently to help fund their waterfront dream house they currently live in. Income from our labour has almost no bearing on what your housing situation is in Victoria. It's entirely family wealth and housing lottery poo poo. I mean the only reason I'm housed is inheritance, I make 40k a year. I could barely afford rent here otherwise. My tech-sector friends who make like 100k+ all have lovely rentals or maybe a lovely condo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Yeah things shifted so rapidly that the reality is that an enormous swathe of east van and burnaby detached homes etc are like obviously not rich working class immigrants. For example Strathcona despite being largely detached homes is like one of the lowest income parts of the region, and that's not just because it's next to the DTES and has some SROs and social housing, but because even the detached homes are either occupied by retired Chinese grannies that have been here since the 1960s or were bought up in the 80s/90s by working artists for like $100k and whose incomes likely remain sub 50k. These facts I think has made some of the unsophisticated, blunt yimby messaging that painted SFH owners broadly as being the same as the wealthy elites of the west side somewhat ineffective in that SFH owners were like, "well I'm not rich so none of this is really true" and tuned out. I've been on the doorstep doing political canvasing and you hear from like SFH owners in east van that are like beside themselves because of rising property taxes and aghast at the idea of a new parking tax, feeling taxed to death because honestly like they genuinely are working class people or low income retirees and it doesn't occur to them for a second that their $2M home is real wealth. To them it's just the lovely house they've always lived in and the underlying value is irrelevant. The problem is that as discussed, we've created so few housing options, that the options to downsize are lousy, little improvement, and so overly expensive that they're not seen as any sort of good option. So relatively low income people remain in their enormously valuable homes and assert that they're struggling and being taxed to death. Honestly I don't disagree with them in some ways. We've given people no great ability to extricate themselves from the homes they have. Maybe this new fourplex proposal is the sort of thing that shakes things up. However it would have been a lot easier if the individual units could be sold off. That way someone could finance the rebuilding that they want to stay in of a lot by selling off part. The way it's set up now someone will have to utterly sell the lot to a developer or develop it themselves. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jul 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
The other story from my family that really underlines how much wealth is now dependent on housing is from the woes of my uncle who moved to Texas in the 1990s and was like VP whatever in the C suite of some small oil company, and yet has little to no ability to move back to Vancouver. Given his job, i'd always assumed he was like one of my wealthiest family members but as the wealth from real estate has come to dominate everything else, it has revealed just how meaningless a high salary is. I'm sure he was making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in his role and accordingly bought a nice big house in the outskirts of Houston, but absolutely no one wants that McMansion and it has not appreciated a cent. Still worth the $300k-500k or whatever he bought it for years and years ago. Meanwhile over here the homes of his siblings have exploded past the $2M mark and that's probably about the price of entry for something he would want to buy up here. In Vancouver now 1.5M will get you a 33' lot crappy building that needs a poo poo ton of work and renovation. I dunno you'd think his high US dollars salary well invested would have provided enough money, but I guess one still needs money for retirement, and maybe he put his money in overly conservative investments. He just doesn't have the money to buy in Canada anymore. It's wild.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:The other story from my family that really underlines how much wealth is now dependent on housing is from the woes of my uncle who moved to Texas in the 1990s and was like VP whatever in the C suite of some small oil company, and yet has little to no ability to move back to Vancouver. Oh wow yeah this is very much like someone I know. In the late 90's they sold their tiny Victoria house in a junky neighbourhood for maybe 150k and moved to north carolina for work doing engineering stuff for Honeywell I think. He ended up management, then doing corporate stuff. Bought a ridiculously huge McMansion in the early 2000's for about 500k american which was the top of what they could afford. He always had the idea to build his wealth and career in the US then retire back to Victoria. He did, but his 500k in 2002 mansion sold for about 500k a couple years ago. He lives in a modest condo now, and his american wife is always pissed they don't have a house and went from like a 6 bedroom house on an acreage to a condo for the same money and wants to move back to the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:I dunno you'd think his high US dollars salary well invested would have provided enough money, but I guess one still needs money for retirement, and maybe he put his money in overly conservative investments. Sounds like he just spent it really poorly. High salary deposits like that will dominate your savings increases until like 10 years in, assuming an average annual return of 8%. There’s no way someone earns hundreds of thousands US for decades and doesn’t end up supremely wealthy unless they are pissing it away constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
qhat posted:Sounds like he just spent it really poorly. High salary deposits like that will dominate your savings increases until like 10 years in, assuming an average annual return of 8%. There’s no way someone earns hundreds of thousands US for decades and doesn’t end up supremely wealthy unless they are pissing it away constantly. Yeah I don't disagree, though this is the story I've been told from my parents and my cousin. Possibly there's more to the story I'm being told here in that my uncle can indeed afford a $2M detached house in Vancouver, but is turning up his nose at the sort of product of what $2M can buy, with its small BC lots, having become in love with the big rear end acreages of Texas. Fiddling around with a Texas take home pay calculator myself I struggle to see how one doesn't end up with a bunch of money out of a big income unless some of the assumptions I have are incorrect. Possible things that cut into that wealth would be terrible investments (ie. nowhere near a return of 8%), fully funding an expensive US education for his daughter, and otherwise high spending. Or maybe my expectations of the sort of lofty US income that a VP would make are just not what I thought they were. Even if he has put that salary to good work and has transformed that income into a mid to upper single digit millions pile of cash, he could be balking at the notion of taking a quarter of his retirement fund purely to buy a house. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jul 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
My honest experience is that most people are penny-wise and pound-stupid. When they come across a large income stream they completely fail at the whole "don't increase your lifestyle costs" mantra. Like a close friend of mine earns probably the equivalent of 200k CAD designing ships and had saved up like 250k after 4 years of working. I'd managed to convince him to invest it in VGRO rather than just letting it sit in his bank account as cash; I thought finally he's on the right track. Nope. Two weeks later he withdraws half of it and buys the latest Ford Bronco for 100k. tldr People on average are much more horrible with money than they let out to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
I'm actually a bit bullish on the new Fed Housing Minister Sean Fraser being a significant upgrade that could lead to something. He was really impressive in this interview with Althia Raj. He wasn't just sticking to some talking points and was answering the questions genuinely with clarity. he's in the last 4-5m of the podcast here (of which the article linked above is a summary) https://open.spotify.com/episode/61fSnKTEKxdZnYDp6SAc5c?si=aZOaYiaFRJqOv1EfqOKJ6A&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A5gmO4LTIH3AKfX45Dx8I5d quote:New housing minister says closing door on newcomers is no solution to housing crunch
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
Glad that it looks like they're not buying into the false dichotomy and blatant scapegoating, at least on paper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Pardon me if I'm not impressed by the former immigration minister saying his incoherent policies are not to blame (which is mostly true, but only because other policies contributed more), but (implicitly) those of the guy he's replacing. Almost all of the Liberals' immigration policies have focused on addressing (real or perceived) labour shortages, but many of them are also exploitative and/or designed to suppress wages. They've continually expanded the TFW program, for example, while doing little to improve their conditions. International student recruitment has grown astonishingly quickly, as has tuition. Ironically, the Liberals temporarily lifted the 20-hour-per-week cap on the number of hours that eligible post-secondary students are allowed to work off-campus while class is in session (how are students supposed to learn while working over 20 hours a week is left to the reader's imagination). As far as I know, colleges and universities are not required to maintain any particular level of on-campus housing so municipalities are left to deal with it. International students are increasingly getting a raw deal so it's not clear so who is really benefiting from this system? The students themselves, not so much; workers at those educational institutes, hah, I doubt it. By a similar token, there are still shortages of medical professionals across the country. Of course you can blame conservative premiers for much of that, but the feds have also dragged their feet on streamlining accreditation of foreign professionals for literally decades. Fraser himself says in the article that developers are complaining about a lack of skilled builders - so wasn't it part of his own drat job to recruit more?? Why are there still supposedly persistent labour shortages despite record-breaking immigration? Another Liberal policy is to build a thriving, world-leading innovative blah blah blah tech sector through targeted recruitment. The 10,000 spots for H-1B visa holders was part of that. Another was supposed to be a soon-to-be-announced "digital nomad" visa allowing foreign and mostly tech workers to stay here for up to 6 months. Nobody really explained what the purpose of this latter policy was beyond "other countries are doing it" (citing mostly European countries with considerably lower immigration and fertility rates). Has any of this actually worked? Maybe it's too early to say. Back in January 2018 the IT & Tech sector contribute 89B/y to the GDP and now it's 116B (see here). So I suppose that is something even if it's still lagging behind the traditional Canadian areas of expertise, namely FI/RE and resource extraction. If there is success here I'd wager a lot of it is again wage suppression in the sense that much of this is tech workers getting paid less than they would for similar positions in the US but at least in an absolute sense they're getting a reasonable deal. It still seems bizarre to insist that supply is the problem while also proudly announcing that you're doing everything you can to stoke demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
Bringing in TFWs to work low-paying jobs has only ever been about suppressing wages, which is why it's kind of maddening that it never gets questioned by the caucus that's supposed to be aligned with labor. It's a slick move to bring in high earners who pay lots of taxes without having had to pay a dime for their education (and Canada has been quite lucky in that it has been generally a desirable place to live and has had a non-broken immigration system), but most immigrants to Canada do not fit that description. A bunch of people earning middling wages are not, and never have been, capable of making every house in Toronto worth a million dollars. eXXon posted:The 10,000 spots for H-1B visa holders was part of that. Another was supposed to be a soon-to-be-announced "digital nomad" visa allowing foreign and mostly tech workers to stay here for up to 6 months. The cynical part of me thinks that the H-1B holders will head back across the border the moment they can a more permanent status in the U.S., but they might stick around for the high salaries, cheap housing, and good weather we've got here. And digital nomads are usually people who exploit the difference between a high salary and country with a low cost of living. I don't see much demand for moving to a more expensive country than the one they're coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
The reason I see for optimism around Sean Fraser is less the policy aspect and more that he actually seems like a competant person that can drive implementation. He certainly got that population number to move. A problem we've had to date is that the Liberals have announced [big impressive number] of new homes with new funding and then... nothing actually happens. If money actually starts getting out the door and we're seeing "This Apartment built thanks to Justin Trudeau's Economic Action Plan" signs all over the place, then that's a big concrete improvement over the do nothing housing ministers we've had up to this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The cynical part of me thinks that the H-1B holders will head back across the border the moment they can a more permanent status in the U.S., but they might stick around for the high salaries, cheap housing, and good weather we've got here. There's presumably two groups that have reasonable prospects of deciding to stay in Canada: Indian immigration in particular (there are per-country GC caps that effectively impact only China and India, India far more so) is so broken in the US that you can imagine that being a long-term viable immigration source. Because of well-known abuses of the H-1B system there's also, relatively speaking, a lot more low-skilled Indian tech workers on H-1Bs than tech workers of other national origins, so some of the main selling points of employment in the US (much higher salaries and career advancement at the top-end of the market) are not applicable to them. Also anecdotally a lot of high-skill Western Europeans strongly dislike various aspects of American life, find Canada to be much less of a culture shock, and have far better employment options working remotely in Canada for US companies than they would in Europe. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:The reason I see for optimism around Sean Fraser is less the policy aspect and more that he actually seems like a competant person that can drive implementation. He certainly got that population number to move. Not too inspired that Sean Fraser says new immigrants will build the houses we need. If every immigrant coming in and their children were construction workers it still wouldn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Have there been reforms to the TFW programs? I know in Victoria there was a local McDonalds owner in a bad part of town simply declare "no one wants to work anymore" and how canadian youth have no work ethic and run away just because they're paid minimum wage to deal with extremely hostile and dangerous customers every day. So, he managed to get in on the TFW program and stocked his McDonalds with only TFW's. He also housed them all in some flop house he bought. Those workers were not remotely being treated right and their labour rights were horribly abused as you can imagine someone who's boss, landlord, and visa holder are all the same rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
Anything to improve conditions for workers, you mean? Nothing substantial that I know of. This paper claims that temporary workers were a whopping 4% of the workforce as of 2019. Most of that was not the TFWP proper, but something called the International Mobility Program which lets employers hire temporary workers without Labour Market Impact Assessments. I gather this includes anyone taking advantage of NAFTA/CUSMA (big fail there Canada, it should be called CAMUS), and other programs I'm not aware of because I am not an employer looking to hire temporary workers. Another chunk that's grown much more rapidly and is now ~3x larger than the TFWP is the Post-Graduation Work Permit Program, which I presume is less exploitative. The article notes that it's difficult to count how many hours, if any, that permit holders actually worked for a number of reasons; a different paper cited that only 60% of permit holders (I think this means TFWs proper, not the other categories) were issued T4s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
ASCUM was right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 22:55
|
|