this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
297 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm in a house. I want to live in a different house. I can't afford a different house. Make houses cheaper.

At least how I see it house prices rising is good for you short term if you are hopping from one house to another. For instance I bought my first house in 2020 for 800k, I sold for 1.1mil and bought a 600k house (so I don't get screwed when my mortage renews) that 300k I 'made' from the sale gets to go directly to making my mortgage cheaper and/or renovations.

If house prices drop below what you have left on your mortage then it becomes quite difficult to move, especially if you are upgrading, unless I am missing something.

If you don't plan on moving then the value doesn't really matter much at all besides possibly lowering land tax (but land tax valuations are really divorced from the market rate)

This is a selfish take of course, I think housing prices need to go down, and part of why I choose my current home is because it's a forever home and I don't ever plan on selling so I don't need to care about how the housing market fluxuates. One way or another someone is going to get caught holding the bag, I think home owners are a lot more likely to absorb that damage than most others.

Housing is complex, and I am ni expert, so how do you think this reasoning is incorrect.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

I do not. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

A percentage of homeowners want prices to increase would be more correct. I don't know what that percentage is, but it cannot be 100%.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

This statement was never made.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My apologies, the statement was "every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value"

As a person who's in a house and won't hate losing that value, the statement remains false.

I'd also guess that the members of the local anti-gentrification groups also won't hate losing that value; but that's only a guess.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I finally see what you are trying to say. You wouldn't mind losing value in your house, so "the statement remains false" for you.

All i was saying originally is: lowering housing prices would be hard to pull off politically because there will be a significant portion of the 65% of canadians that own houses, that would mind losing that value.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

CMHC built and helpt built about a million houses in '45 to '49 because we needed them.

We're soon to be short 3.5 million houses. So build them.

The only discernable difference is that than in '45 the unhoused were already organized and more apt to violence due to the nature of being a demobilized army.

65% of Canadians can get pissed off about it. But the alternatives look worse, and they'll be more pissed off.

Or we can wait until the number of homeowners drops below the number of non-owners (20 years based on the trend of the last two censuses) and see what the masses decide over the gentry then.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago

Ah okay you just don't understand hyperbole. Have a good day.