Mainstream research has led us to the situation we’re in. The politicians don’t want to discuss the actual fix because it will get them voted out of office. Passing a policy that drops housing prices by 50% wouldn’t even be enough to make major cities affordable here in Canada, it needs to be somewhere in the 70-80% range.
That listing you posted, there’s so many things wrong with what you that I don’t think you have ever lived there let alone speak the language.
First, It’s nowhere near 2300 square feet of house. Those bedrooms are reasonable, but I wouldn’t call them large (8jo, 140ish square feet for two of them and 235ish square feet for the big one), That entire upper floor is maybe 800 square feet in total, and the downstairs is smaller because half of it is a garage. It’s probably a 1400-1500 square foot home.
Second, It’s 40 years old. That may not seem like a lot in North America, but that’s nearing the end of it’s life in Japan given their construction.
Third, it’s 14 minutes from a train station, but not a JR rail station. The Toyoko line is a private line, and that station gets nothing but local service. It’s a 30-40 minute ride to anywhere in central Tokyo. It has a garage for a reason, because a car is essentially required for that family.
We have enough housing in Canada, there are just under 17 million units for 40 million people. Given that people live together and have children regularly, that means there’s no problems.
The issue is an investment problem, how much money would you spend if you knew that no matter what you put in, you’d always get more back?
That’s what housing has been for the last 30 years…
Until we remove the profit from housing investment (but leave the profit for construction, renovation, etc) we will never fix the problem. Building more housing doesn’t make the land under it any cheaper, and the land cost is the problem.
How can you say we’re in this mess due to mainstream research when we are not following mainstream research! That makes no sense.
Oh my sweet Jesus, did you post the metro population of various cities and claim that the population of those cities never went down?? The metro population of Tokyo also never went down! Yikes, your whole comment is a mess!
No housing expert or urban economist agrees with you that we have sufficient housing, but I give up trying to reason with you. Have a good day!
The mainstream research says keep building to become affordable, we’ve been building at max capacity for almost a decade now… and we’re further away from affordable than we were 10 years ago.
What’s wrong with using the metro values? How are they less valid than a smaller core city value? A metro value is going to better represent the population, the city lines are extremely arbitrary.
Lots of economists agree with me, including Nobel prize winning ones. We need land value taxes to reign in land values and speculation, this current problem of rent seeking behavior was predicted literally hundreds of years ago and they came up with the solution as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
The CMHC says we need to build an additional 3.5 million homes by 2030 to bring affordability back to 2004 levels, and yet we’re currently only able to produce 250k a year (so about half of the number we need) and already every construction site has a help wanted sign. How the fuck is that supposed to work? How is anything the government is even talking about going to reach that number? The answer is simple: it won’t. It’s all smoke and mirrors from politicians says “look at us, we’re doing something” and in a decade, it will be worse than it was today despite all these programs.
The only realistic way we hit that number is if the Canadian government institutes a draft and forces those people to build homes overriding all zoning and probably even appropriating land while they’re at it.
So experts are wrong and you’re right, but also plenty of experts agree with you? How do you believe these contradictory things?
Experts agree on a land value tax and so do I. If that’s all you said, we wouldn’t be disagreeing. But the crazy thing you said is that we need no new housing supply, which no one agrees with.
You also seem to be completely ignorant as to why taxing land value works. When land value is not taxed, we subsidize inefficient use of land like the economically and environmentally disastrous suburban sprawl you seem to like so much.
I need to get back to my own students. Please consider taking an intro economics or urban design course, or even just read a book or two.
The mainstream consensus is wrong because it’s driven by politics, not economics. Nobody is willing to suggest the simple economic policies that would drop housing prices by 50%, because it would lose them the next election. The government could drop a 100% capital gains tax on land values tomorrow and fix the issue entirely. Of course it would eliminate a very large chunk of the savings of more than half the population which would cause all sorts of social and economic problems, but it would reign in housing costs overnight.
I never said no new housing supply, point out a single statement where I said that. I’m pointing out that building by itself won’t makes homes affordable. There’s a theoretical way, where we wave our magic wand and have millions of houses appear, but there’s no practical way to get that number of units we would need to drop prices to affordable levels without massively inflating the cost (counter productive) in order to pull more labour from other industries and it would take decades to retrain that many people anyways.
Land value taxing would work to reduce prices because it drives down profitability of holding land. The efficiency of the tax at regulating use is almost secondary to the removal of the profit motive for holding land. As I’ve pointed out, there isn’t a huge shortage of housing with less than 2.5 people per unit across the country, the price is the current problem. That current price is mostly driven by what people expect to make in terms of the investment, rather than the value they get from living there.
I should know, my wife and I are around 800k more wealthy simply by owning the home we’ve lived in for the last 13 years (We’ve upgraded twice from our initial starter) and we knew that was going to happen when we took out the largest mortgages we could afford in order to maximize the leverage on the investment.
Mainstream research has led us to the situation we’re in. The politicians don’t want to discuss the actual fix because it will get them voted out of office. Passing a policy that drops housing prices by 50% wouldn’t even be enough to make major cities affordable here in Canada, it needs to be somewhere in the 70-80% range.
Population went down in cities everywhere? You’re calling me out for doing my own research, but you’re just straight up lying now. https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20404/vancouver/population#:~:text=The current metro area population,a 0.97%25 increase from 2020. https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population#:~:text=The current metro area population,a 0.03%25 decline from 2020. https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20402/toronto/population#:~:text=The current metro area population,a 0.94%25 increase from 2020.
That listing you posted, there’s so many things wrong with what you that I don’t think you have ever lived there let alone speak the language. First, It’s nowhere near 2300 square feet of house. Those bedrooms are reasonable, but I wouldn’t call them large (8jo, 140ish square feet for two of them and 235ish square feet for the big one), That entire upper floor is maybe 800 square feet in total, and the downstairs is smaller because half of it is a garage. It’s probably a 1400-1500 square foot home. Second, It’s 40 years old. That may not seem like a lot in North America, but that’s nearing the end of it’s life in Japan given their construction. Third, it’s 14 minutes from a train station, but not a JR rail station. The Toyoko line is a private line, and that station gets nothing but local service. It’s a 30-40 minute ride to anywhere in central Tokyo. It has a garage for a reason, because a car is essentially required for that family.
We have enough housing in Canada, there are just under 17 million units for 40 million people. Given that people live together and have children regularly, that means there’s no problems.
The issue is an investment problem, how much money would you spend if you knew that no matter what you put in, you’d always get more back? That’s what housing has been for the last 30 years… Until we remove the profit from housing investment (but leave the profit for construction, renovation, etc) we will never fix the problem. Building more housing doesn’t make the land under it any cheaper, and the land cost is the problem.
How can you say we’re in this mess due to mainstream research when we are not following mainstream research! That makes no sense.
Oh my sweet Jesus, did you post the metro population of various cities and claim that the population of those cities never went down?? The metro population of Tokyo also never went down! Yikes, your whole comment is a mess!
No housing expert or urban economist agrees with you that we have sufficient housing, but I give up trying to reason with you. Have a good day!
The mainstream research says keep building to become affordable, we’ve been building at max capacity for almost a decade now… and we’re further away from affordable than we were 10 years ago.
What’s wrong with using the metro values? How are they less valid than a smaller core city value? A metro value is going to better represent the population, the city lines are extremely arbitrary.
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/21671/tokyo/population Yes Metro Tokyo has declined every year since 2018
Lots of economists agree with me, including Nobel prize winning ones. We need land value taxes to reign in land values and speculation, this current problem of rent seeking behavior was predicted literally hundreds of years ago and they came up with the solution as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
The CMHC says we need to build an additional 3.5 million homes by 2030 to bring affordability back to 2004 levels, and yet we’re currently only able to produce 250k a year (so about half of the number we need) and already every construction site has a help wanted sign. How the fuck is that supposed to work? How is anything the government is even talking about going to reach that number? The answer is simple: it won’t. It’s all smoke and mirrors from politicians says “look at us, we’re doing something” and in a decade, it will be worse than it was today despite all these programs.
The only realistic way we hit that number is if the Canadian government institutes a draft and forces those people to build homes overriding all zoning and probably even appropriating land while they’re at it.
So experts are wrong and you’re right, but also plenty of experts agree with you? How do you believe these contradictory things?
Experts agree on a land value tax and so do I. If that’s all you said, we wouldn’t be disagreeing. But the crazy thing you said is that we need no new housing supply, which no one agrees with.
You also seem to be completely ignorant as to why taxing land value works. When land value is not taxed, we subsidize inefficient use of land like the economically and environmentally disastrous suburban sprawl you seem to like so much.
I need to get back to my own students. Please consider taking an intro economics or urban design course, or even just read a book or two.
The mainstream consensus is wrong because it’s driven by politics, not economics. Nobody is willing to suggest the simple economic policies that would drop housing prices by 50%, because it would lose them the next election. The government could drop a 100% capital gains tax on land values tomorrow and fix the issue entirely. Of course it would eliminate a very large chunk of the savings of more than half the population which would cause all sorts of social and economic problems, but it would reign in housing costs overnight.
I never said no new housing supply, point out a single statement where I said that. I’m pointing out that building by itself won’t makes homes affordable. There’s a theoretical way, where we wave our magic wand and have millions of houses appear, but there’s no practical way to get that number of units we would need to drop prices to affordable levels without massively inflating the cost (counter productive) in order to pull more labour from other industries and it would take decades to retrain that many people anyways.
Land value taxing would work to reduce prices because it drives down profitability of holding land. The efficiency of the tax at regulating use is almost secondary to the removal of the profit motive for holding land. As I’ve pointed out, there isn’t a huge shortage of housing with less than 2.5 people per unit across the country, the price is the current problem. That current price is mostly driven by what people expect to make in terms of the investment, rather than the value they get from living there.
I should know, my wife and I are around 800k more wealthy simply by owning the home we’ve lived in for the last 13 years (We’ve upgraded twice from our initial starter) and we knew that was going to happen when we took out the largest mortgages we could afford in order to maximize the leverage on the investment.