Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Pretty rad dad pad: Oct 13, 2003; People who try to pretend they're superior make it so much harder for those of us who really are. Philistines!

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.

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.

I feel like he's been building (heh) up to this for a little while, in that the new federal immigration rules targeting specific professions (vs just "can you plausibly pass for a :siren:

manager

come on in!") just came out a few months ago. Whether anything will come of that is maybe a different question - when I think of people willing to go through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops, I don't tend to think of brickies :v:

but still, there's obviously at least an attempt being made at something with a bit more depth.

Baronjutter posted:

Have there been reforms to the TFW programs?

Anecdotally and all that, but when I was going through the PR process in 2017-2019, working for the sort of place that would probably have been nothing but TFWs if they felt they could pull it off, there were none - just a bunch of former TFWs who had come over in 2013 or so, who had since become permanent residents and were still working there. Company's logic being that it wasn't worth the application fee as if they followed the rules re advertising etc they'd probably manage to hire someone, and if they didn't they'd just get rejected. TFW submissions are per job advertised IIRC, not a blanket 'you get to hire people' sort of thing.

A year ago, they were advertising the same sorts of jobs explicitly noting that they would consider people that needed the temp work permit ie that they thought they had a decent chance of getting applications through.

Today, they're back to requiring that you have your permit situation sorted out prior to applying ie no TFWs.

I'm not aware of anything really changing much as far as the rules of the program - maybe just a case of, there was the ~nobody wants to work~ moment, they managed to get a bunch of apps through in that moment, and now they're not getting new ones, but they do of course have a bunch of extra staff out of it & will for a few years.

quote:

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.

There were a couple of guys like that in Golden, the Tim Hortons guy (I think he had four or five of them between there and Edmonton) did the same thing with a minivan worth of kids from Jamaica and another from Quebec every summer. The former generally put up with it for a couple of years, reasoning that it was worth enduring some bullshit to get through the PR process and then move out to live with the family members who invariably existed out in Ontario; the latter, not having to worry about immigration stuff, were mostly there for a good time so didn't really care as long as work didn't cut into hiking or paragliding or racing around in tiny rustbucket cars or whatever they did with their downtime. I think it tends to 'work out' in that whenever someone gets a bulk shipment of TFWs like that they tend to be from the same place, more or less, so there's automatically a bit of a mutual support group for when the boss's back is turned - you can put up with a lot if you've got a few shoulders to cry on in the same position. Lots of, did you get on at the right time with the right agency in the Phillippines who Tim Hortons #5837 owner ended up getting in touch with to source people kind of thing. There's probably a PhD and a good book or two in collecting stories of how little groups like that end up where they are and how life goes during the process.

eXXon posted:

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.

Yeah the IMP covers a whole pile of stuff, from soldiers sent here for training, to aircrew on leased planes in some circumstances, to students working etc. Not all that meaningful as one big number, really.

The PGWP is nominally less exploitative in the sense that you have an open work permit for however many years and so can go work for anyone, in theory. This works great if you're, say, someone with a bit of work experience already who came over here to do a Masters course, or some technical course at a smaller but serious college, since you'd probably be basically employable anyway but for the lack of the piece of paper validating it. That's the program working as designed, more or less.

However...if you're one of the chumps who went to a lovely private 'university' and 'graduated' from a course in ~Business Communications~ or whatever your pathway to staying in Canada (which, make no mistake, is the whole point, if you're in this category) is very often the same Tim Hortons or Subway or similar sort of thing -> provincial sponsorship route that TFW holders would be looking at - you just got to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege. For those people I'd probably say it's even more exploitative in practice - sure, you can quit your job reheating 50,000 muffins every day, but then what? Back home to explain why you just burnt $50k for a degree that's worth about as much as the muffin wrappers you go through in a shift? Those low-level immigration programs often have a time-in-job requirement - so you're allowed to quit and go elsewhere, sure, but you're taking a huge risk by doing so, meaning you probably won't do it.
.

# ? Jul 28, 2023 03:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 17:36

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

hm well that would seem counter productive.

quote:

Canada�s housing shortfall could widen by another 500K units if immigration continues at current pace: report

Canada�s housing shortfall could widen by another 500,000 units within just two years if immigration continues at its current pace, according to a recent report from TD Economics.

In the report, economists Beata Caranci, James Orlando and Rishi Sondhi note that Canada�s population grew by 1.2 million over the past year, as of the second quarter of 2023 � more than double the pace of population growth in 2019 and years prior.

And the federal government has set its sights on welcoming another 500,000 people per year by 2025 in hopes of addressing labour shortages and counterbalancing the country�s aging demographic.

But the economists question whether the �sudden swing in population has gone too far, too fast.�

Even before this �sudden influx� of newcomers, the economists say Canada�s future housing stock was forecast to become less affordable across the country.

And if the government�s current high-growth immigration strategy continues, they estimate the country�s housing shortfall could widen by about half a million units in just two years� time.

�Recent government policies to accelerate construction are unlikely to offer a stopgap in this short time period due to the natural lags that exist in adjusting supply,� the report states.

The National Bank of Canada released a report on Wednesday that echoed those points.

�The federal government�s decision to open the immigration floodgates during the most aggressive monetary tightening cycle in a generation has created a record imbalance between housing supply and demand,� National Bank chief economist St�fane Marion said in a note to investors.

�As housing affordability pressures continue to mount across the country, we believe Ottawa should consider revising its immigration targets to allow supply to catch up with demand."

A recent BMO analysis suggests that for every one per cent increase in population, housing prices typically increase by roughly three per cent each year. It points out that in recent years, Canada�s population has been growing at an average annual pace of 1.5 per cent per year � and a whopping 2.7 per cent in 2022 alone � which is consistent over time with five per cent annual home price gains on top of inflation.

Mikal Skuterud, a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo and the director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum, praised the banks for presenting facts as opposed to taking a more subjective approach to immigration in the reports.

He noted, however, that the issues of housing affordability and limited housing supply would exist regardless of the current pace of immigration in Canada, but immigration is likely making things worse.

�On the housing front, there are underlying issues there that are longstanding and/or independent of immigration levels,� Skuterud told CTVNews.ca in an interview.

�For sure, immigration is not helping the issue � it's probably exacerbating it.�

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has estimated the country needs to build 3.5 million more homes by 2030 than it is currently on track for, to help achieve some semblance of housing affordability.

The TD report stresses that social pressures are not limited to housing and that other areas like health-care and social support systems are also not keeping up with Canada�s population expansion.

In 2021, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated that Canada ranked 31 of 34 countries in the number of acute care hospital beds on a per capita basis.

The economists say this is �unlikely to have improved� given Canada�s rapid population growth, despite provincial and federal governments� efforts to recruit more health-care workers and fund more hospital beds.

�Greater thought and estimation needs to occur on what�s a true absorption rate for population growth. Policy cannot be singularly focused on the perceived demands of employers, and even educational institutions,� they suggest in the report.

Skuterud said his �biggest concern� is that Canadians are �entirely focused� on the housing market rather than what�s happening in the economy as a whole.

�What is happening in the housing market is happening much more broadly,� he said.

Instead, Skuterud said Canadians must focus on the bigger picture, or the country�s capital stock as a whole, as opposed to just residential capital, which refers to housing, when envisioning a more prosperous Canada.

�Capital includes business capital, which is like machinery and equipment, intellectual property, factories, buildings, and it includes social infrastructure, a lot of which is government owned, so that's like public transportation systems, health-care systems, schools,� he explained.

�All this kind of capital is a huge part of what allows Canada to be rich and productive.�

In a paper released in June, Skuterud and his co-authors argue that Canada is not well-positioned to leverage heightened immigration to boost GDP per capita, primarily due to weak capital investment and quantity-quality tradeoffs in immigrant selection.

In other words, Skuterud said Canada is not investing enough in machinery, equipment and technology, which would reduce the demand for labour and increase productivity.

At the same time, he said Canada is relying on an increasing number of temporary foreign workers (TFWs), including foreign students, to fill in labour gaps at low wages as opposed to paying domestic workers more or bringing in high-skilled immigrants to boost the economy and overall productivity in Canada.

According to the TD report, there was a 68 per cent jump in the number of positions approved for TFWs in 2022 due to the federal government�s easing of access to low-skilled TFWs.

This, Skuterud said, does not boost the GDP per capita, or breakdown of the country's economic output per person, but rather undermines labour productivity and average economic living standards in the population. According to another recent report from TD, Canada has lagged behind the U.S. and other advanced economies in terms of real GDP per capita despite recent years of �headline growth.�.

�When the population grows faster than the capital stock, then there's less capital per person and that makes us poor,� Skuterud said.

New Housing and Infrastructure Minister Sean Fraser, who previously served as Canada�s immigration minister, has said closing the door to newcomers is not the solution to the country's housing crisis and has instead endorsed building more homes to accommodate higher immigration flows.

"The answer is, at least in part, to continue to build more stock," Fraser told reporters after being sworn into his new role.

On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre slammed the Liberal government�s immigration strategy, but did not answer questions about whether he would consider reducing the government�s current immigration targets.

If elected, he said a Conservative government would base its immigration policy on the needs of private-sector employers, the degree to which charities plan to support refugees and the desire for family reunification.

"I'll make sure we have housing and healthcare so that when people come here they have a roof overhead and care when they need it," Poilievre told reporters on Parliament Hill.

"I'll make sure that it's easier for employers to fill genuine job vacancies they cannot fill."

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Surely the government will consider all of these economic reports... oh

quote:

Canada Sticks With Immigration Target Despite Housing Crunch
New minister says targets will be kept or raised, not cut
Soaring housing costs risk eroding support for immigration

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau�s government won�t lower its immigration targets despite growing criticism that drastic population growth worsens existing housing shortages.

In one of his first interviews a week into his new cabinet role, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said the government will have to either keep � or raise � its annual targets for permanent residents of about half a million. That�s because of the diminishing number of working-age people relative to the number of retirees and the risk it poses to public service funding, he said.

�I don�t see a world in which we lower it, the need is too great,� said Miller, who�s expected to announce new targets on Nov. 1. �Whether we revise them upwards or not is something that I have to look at. But certainly I don�t think we�re in any position of wanting to lower them by any stretch of the imagination.�

Globally, advanced economies are confronting similar challenges from decreasing birth rates and aging workforces, and many are competing for skilled workers. But while immigration for some countries is a divisive issue that can polarize voters and even topple a government, Canada has comfortably relied on public support to open its doors more widely for working-age newcomers.

Miller�s comments suggest the government is still counting on that backing to grow its population rapidly to stave off long-term economic decline. Trudeau�s government has consistently raised its target for permanent residents. Last year, foreign students, temporary workers and refugees made up another group that�s even larger, bringing total arrivals to a record one million.

In the short term, however, that massive growth has strained major urban centers and exacerbated housing shortages. In the 12 months to March, 4 to 5 international migrants arrived in Canada for every newly started unit of housing construction. That�s the highest ratio of new Canadians to new homes on record in data going back to 1977.

Many Canadians now criticize the government for not only doing too little to boost supply, but also making it worse by adding too much demand from immigration. But Miller pushed back against that view.

�We have to get away from this notion that immigrants are the major cause of housing pressures and the increase in home prices,� he said. �We tend not to think in longer historical arcs or in generational terms, but if people want dental care, health care and affordable housing that they expect, the best way to do that is to get that skilled labor in this country.�

On Wednesday, National Bank Financial�s Chief Economist Stefane Marion called on the government to revise its immigration policy until housing construction catches up with demand. Marion said the government�s decision to open the �immigration floodgates� led to a �record imbalance� between housing supply and demand, and homebuilders can�t keep up with the influx.

A recent survey by Ottawa-based Abacus Data showed 61% of respondents believed Canada�s immigration target is too high, and 63% of them said the number of immigrants coming to the country was having a negative impact on housing.

�What�s driving this is really rational concerns, not xenophobia,� said David Coletto, Abacus Data�s chief executive officer. �From many people�s perspective, the growth that Canada experienced hasn�t been matched with an increase in infrastructure. It�s putting a strain on public opinion toward immigration more broadly. We�d be foolish to assume that Canada�s immune to the same forces that have affected other countries.�

In another survey published in July, 39% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a political party that promised to reduce immigration numbers. That compared with 24% who said they�d be less likely to do so and 30% who said it�d have no impact. This suggests there may be an appetite for campaigning on reducing immigration, according to Coletto.

Last week in an extensive cabinet shuffle, Trudeau shored up his economic bench and laid some groundwork for future elections as his government faces attacks over the rising cost of living. Sean Fraser was moved from immigration to housing and infrastructure. Miller � who as Crown-Indigenous relations minister quieted some the loudest criticisms of Trudeau on reconciliation � took the reins at immigration.

�Politicians look in electoral cycles. But in my role, we have to look in generational cycles,� Miller said. �Canada needs to address that in a smart way, and that means attracting a younger segment of the population to make sure that people can retire with same expectations and benefits that their parents had. That�s the stark reality of it.�

# ? Aug 4, 2023 04:11

Mederlock: Jun 23, 2012; You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it; Grimey Drawer

Great. Just when I thought my wife and I would finally be able to afford a somewhat reasonable house next spring. :negative:

# ? Aug 4, 2023 04:20

COPE 27: Sep 11, 2006

Maybe if we increase interest rates some more no one will be able to afford a home and that will be good for some reason

# ? Aug 4, 2023 04:46

Alctel: Jan 16, 2004; I love snails

There is gonna be a nasty backlash against newcomers if this carries on and I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives make a big deal of it next election

# ? Aug 4, 2023 06:03

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

COPE 27 posted:

Maybe if we increase interest rates some more no one will be able to afford a home and that will be good for some reason

This but unironically

# ? Aug 4, 2023 07:05

Mantle: May 15, 2004

COPE 27 posted:

Maybe if we increase interest rates some more no one will be able to afford a home and that will be good for some reason

I dunno man if people can't afford to carry their mortgage and put their house up for sale it sounds like housing is gonna get more affordable for buyers

# ? Aug 4, 2023 07:06

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

High interest rates also mean very little new housing when we need it the most. Low rates + cities not allowing new housing put us into the awful mess we're in now, but the solution was to allow housing, not keep rates jacked up.

# ? Aug 4, 2023 08:08

Fidelitious: Apr 17, 2018; MY BIRTH CRY WILL BE THE SOUND OF EVERY WALLET ON THIS PLANET OPENING IN UNISON.

What if we only allow immigrants that have construction skills.

And then actually give them money to build housing. That's a pretty important part.

# ? Aug 4, 2023 13:22

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Alctel posted:

There is gonna be a nasty backlash against newcomers if this carries on and I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives make a big deal of it next election

they'll do it if they nominate someone non-white

that seem to the be lesson from the UK tories

# ? Aug 4, 2023 15:42

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

Raise interest rates, businesses stop hiring and let some go. Makes people relocate to cheaper areas?

# ? Aug 4, 2023 15:53

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Typo posted:

they'll do it if they nominate someone non-white

that seem to the be lesson from the UK tories

Also nominate women, preferably non white, to deliver the absolute worst and most vicious legislation. At best, coming out of the mouth of a woman softens the blow and vindicates the party of patriarchal bias, and at worst it still isn�t received well except there�s no men taking the hits.

# ? Aug 4, 2023 19:43

the talent deficit: Dec 20, 2003; self-deprecation is a very british trait, and problems can arise when the british attempt to do so with a foreign culture

MeinPanzer posted:

Blah_blah's original point was that Vancouver is an "unpleasant place to live" compared to similar US cities because its amenities are mediocre or bad, and therefore they didn't understand why anyone would pay exorbitant prices to live there if they could go to Seattle/San Diego/wherever.

it's pretty simple. it's extremely hard to immigrate to the us. it's easier to immigrate to canada. if you're already canadian you don't need to do anything to move to vancouver short of buying a plane ticket or driving. so the question isn't 'why live in vancouver when you could live in san diego?' (it's because you can legally live and work in vancouver and can't in san diego). it's 'why live in vancouver when you could live in _____?'. i'm biased because i live in vancouver, but there's basically nowhere in canada you could fill in that blank with and not have me laugh at the ridiculousness of the question

# ? Aug 5, 2023 01:05

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

qhat posted:

Also nominate women, preferably non white, to deliver the absolute worst and most vicious legislation. At best, coming out of the mouth of a woman softens the blow and vindicates the party of patriarchal bias, and at worst it still isn�t received well except there�s no men taking the hits.

They've been doing this forever, see Thatcher, Harris.

# ? Aug 5, 2023 04:46

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Ghost Leviathan posted:

They've been doing this forever, see Thatcher, Harris.

I was mostly referring to recent home secretaries Priti Patel and Suella Braverman, two despicable witches that would rather see illegal migrants drown in the channel than rescue them and process their asylum applications. But yes your examples are also correct.

# ? Aug 5, 2023 05:14

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

Mantle posted:

I dunno man if people can't afford to carry their mortgage and put their house up for sale it sounds like housing is gonna get more affordable for buyers

On the other hand, some argue that the amount of money available to would-be purchasers does not affect the sale prices in the market.