the canadian minister of immigration recently admitted that they should have slowed down on immigration sooner.
A politician pandering to the Right doesn’t make it true.
housing and job market crisis aren’t there for no reason, and it’s partly due to immigration.
Nope. Nobody’s forcing employers to exploit immigrants desperate enough to work for less due to fewer opportunities and less support.
Likewise, housing is much more expensive than simple demand would dictate. Landlords aren’t charging as much as is fair all things considered, or even as much as people can generally afford. They’re charging the absolute maximum that they can get away with, which is usually more than people can afford.
They’re charging the absolute maximum that they can get away with
That’s how all economics works. If you found a job where, in your opinion, you were really overpaid for the work burden - would you go to your boss and ask them to pay you less?
The root of the housing problem is undersupply, which imo is due to a nationwide patchwork of NIMBY policies driven by Boomer landlords, especially in big cities. Younger people and renters just don’t fucking vote, especially in the local elections where housing policies are decided. So Boomer retirees ensure that 95% of the city is zoned for single family housing, and no apartments can get built.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
If you’re buying into an economic system that doesn’t make sure that right is filled, then you have a problem with morality, and perhaps also mortality.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work. Whether you want to support the system or tear it down, understanding it is extremely helpful to either cause.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work.
I mean, tell that to economists? In my experience, they are extremely dogmatic. With vanishingly few exceptions, every economist I’ve ever heard, seen, or read in any media acts as though whatever model they subscribe to is gospel, and that any issues you might have with it must therefore stem from a lack of understanding, rather than from the faulty assumptions underlying it.
ETA a recent example: Harvard economics professor and former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman on Jon Stewart’s podcast.
Economists talking to the media are typically pushing for policy proposals, and in pushing for policy, a “never admit uncertainty” sort of deal is in play to avoid a soundbite where an economist says something that can be played as five-second mockery to sink said policy proposal.
Economists writing in academia can be stubborn and at times utterly bizarre, but are genuinely discussing models and theories the same way sociology does.
Yeah, I think there’s also a lot of tone-deafness among economists, that seems to reflect a lack of understanding (or at least acknowledgment) that the economy is built on—and designed to perpetuate—massive inequality. The average person derives comparatively little benefit from an economy which is—on paper—booming, because the profits are overwhelmingly siphoned off by the wealthy. This is probably mostly a problem with the way the economy is reported on by the media, but economists are the face of that.
A politician pandering to the Right doesn’t make it true.
Nope. Nobody’s forcing employers to exploit immigrants desperate enough to work for less due to fewer opportunities and less support.
Likewise, housing is much more expensive than simple demand would dictate. Landlords aren’t charging as much as is fair all things considered, or even as much as people can generally afford. They’re charging the absolute maximum that they can get away with, which is usually more than people can afford.
That’s how all economics works. If you found a job where, in your opinion, you were really overpaid for the work burden - would you go to your boss and ask them to pay you less?
The root of the housing problem is undersupply, which imo is due to a nationwide patchwork of NIMBY policies driven by Boomer landlords, especially in big cities. Younger people and renters just don’t fucking vote, especially in the local elections where housing policies are decided. So Boomer retirees ensure that 95% of the city is zoned for single family housing, and no apartments can get built.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
If you’re buying into an economic system that doesn’t make sure that right is filled, then you have a problem with morality, and perhaps also mortality.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work. Whether you want to support the system or tear it down, understanding it is extremely helpful to either cause.
I mean, tell that to economists? In my experience, they are extremely dogmatic. With vanishingly few exceptions, every economist I’ve ever heard, seen, or read in any media acts as though whatever model they subscribe to is gospel, and that any issues you might have with it must therefore stem from a lack of understanding, rather than from the faulty assumptions underlying it.
ETA a recent example: Harvard economics professor and former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman on Jon Stewart’s podcast.
Economists talking to the media are typically pushing for policy proposals, and in pushing for policy, a “never admit uncertainty” sort of deal is in play to avoid a soundbite where an economist says something that can be played as five-second mockery to sink said policy proposal.
Economists writing in academia can be stubborn and at times utterly bizarre, but are genuinely discussing models and theories the same way sociology does.
Yeah, I think there’s also a lot of tone-deafness among economists, that seems to reflect a lack of understanding (or at least acknowledgment) that the economy is built on—and designed to perpetuate—massive inequality. The average person derives comparatively little benefit from an economy which is—on paper—booming, because the profits are overwhelmingly siphoned off by the wealthy. This is probably mostly a problem with the way the economy is reported on by the media, but economists are the face of that.