this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
82 points (90.2% liked)

Canada

7280 readers
464 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In case anyone still wants to somehow debate whether the Liberals will deliver affordable housing.

“Housing needs to retain its value,” Mr. Trudeau told The Globe and Mail’s City Space podcast. “It’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future nest egg.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'd say that would be fine in theory, if "retain its value" meant that housing would follow very closely but tailing local inflation. That won't happen though. As long as "housing needs to retain its value" ideology runs the country, housing will be viewed as an investment and scarcity will cause it to push inflation upwards. Even trying really hard to quell these prices it might beat inflation, and even if it were a success it would take decades of nominal-growth with negative-real-returns to bring those prices to parity with incomes.

So no, even if "technically maybe?" the answer is still no.

[–] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

totally agree on most points (see my earlier reply in this thread). However dissuading "investment" into property (aka taxation on non-primary dwellings) and keeping returns below inflation will divert investors from the real estate market over time. They will HODL however if not presented with exit strategy. If they are allowed time to divest and exit - they will IMO

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

keeping returns below inflation will divert investors from the real estate market over time.

There are multiple types of Real Estate investors. We want to attract investors who build, who finance land development, infill, retrofits and so on. These will keep coming because the goal is to sell the labor of construction, and that can still be profitable. We don't want to attract land speculators or rent-seekers, these provide little value to the market.

They will HODL however if not presented with exit strategy. If they are allowed time to divest and exit - they will IMO

Investors (i.e. institutional/professionals, not amateurs) don't hold on to investments because they lack an exit strategy. It's the exact opposite. Investors get rid of assets as soon as there's enough information to say a loss is likely.

I know that the biggest chunk of real estate "investors" are amateur shops, people hoarding homes as their retirement plan, and these might hold on despite bad performance yeah. This happens all over the world because in most markets Real Estate is a bad investment, yet people are addicted to it.

But in any case, I was discussing the outcomes under the hypothesis that home prices are following inflation, so the hypothesis includes the assumption that there's enough market transactions to put those prices under control.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

This happens all over the world because in most markets Real Estate is a bad investment, yet people are addicted to it.

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.