This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://josephheath.substack.com/p/a-critical-theory-of-or-for-america
I think Canada is moving to build more housing, despite Trudeau's lip service to protecting housing prices. There's just a delay between realizing there's a crisis and actually getting housing built.
It's not even close to the scale required to address the problem. The important number is nestled in the middle of OP's post, so you might have skimmed over it. 400,000 people in 3 months. Graph of population increase vs housing completions.
Canada is taking in over a million people a year, and building maybe 1/4 of the housing (not to mention the other infrastructure) needed to support that growth.
That's not typical though. A lot of that is temporary residents. The government is targeting 500,000 a year, so you can expect that to be the long run average.
The government says they're targeting 500k a year, but should we believe them?
In flagrant violation of the first law of holes, they have not stopped digging. There is a massive housing crisis in the country, and immigration is the first and most available lever the federal government has on the problem. Ottawa (mostly) can't build homes directly, at least not on the scale the country needs. Trudeau's "ambitious housing plan" is a paltry 2 million additional homes across 8 years, with half of that covered by the provinces and municipalities, and that's if it actually goes to plan. If you're bringing in a million people every year.., the math ain't mathing, as the kids say. Even at their target of 500k, it seems like not quite enough.
As for temporary vs permanent, I'm not sure. I've known many temporary residents, all waiting around for PR, some staying long past their expired work permits: my friends and coworkers - good people, for sure, but they have to live somewhere. It also seems like no one really ever gets deported. Famously, you have to kill 16 people, but less anecdotally, the country is only deporting a few thousand a year, equivalent to a few days worth of immigration.
I have talked to a number of recent immigrants on dating apps, and a huge number are students or recent graduates of a very low ranked local university that I've never even heard of any local going to, and whose student body seems to be about 90% international students. I don't think it's bad enough to be called a diploma mill, but it's not good. It makes me doubt that we're really attracting the brightest people. The standards of the higher ranked universities themselves are dropping. All of these universities have a huge problem with cheating from what I've heard and the lower ranked ones have pretty low standards for passing.
I don't think the immigration rate should take the price of housing into account though. The average Canadian benefits from higher prices. The problem is that cities refuse to allow development. The median voter supports immigration but doesn't want his own neighbourhood to change. And they don't want urban sprawl either. But even if they doesn't happen, the average Canadian is still better off with high property values.
Yeah.. some of that is true.
My steelman for the government's actions is that they're doing what they feel is best for the country because something something Century Initiative. Country needs population to support its social program Ponzi scheme (and I mean that with love. Free healthcare is great, but it is expensive. So is OAS). It needs to be paid for with an expanding population's taxes, and where that population lives is not Ottawa's problem. It's not Trudeau's fault most of Vancouver still looks like this.
But no. I don't think the average Canadian benefits from higher home prices. The average voter? maybe. So then you have the PM just come right out and admit it. "Home prices cannot be allowed to fall". It's generational warfare, and our politicians have picked the side their votes come from. The boomers get to retire. You get to eat the bugs.
How can the average Canadian not benefit from higher property values if the vast majority of property is owned by Canadians?
It's not generational warfare. People are free to give the proceeds of higher property values to their children, and most of them do. It's not the government's fault if some people don't want to help their children. But when the government does intervene and artificially suppresses property values or taxes them to redistribute to the young, a large share of that is redistribution to immigrants or their children. This is the opposite of what the government should do if it wants to help Canadians at the expense of foreigners as so many claim it should.
"Generational warfare" was perhaps hyperbolic. I mean that the government is propping up assets that, absent their meddling, should come down in value, if things were at all sane like in the US.
It doesn't help the younger generation of Canadians now if their parents will eventually croak in 25 or 30 years and leave them the house (along with god knows what owed in deferred property tax. Have fun with that, kids! Edit: actually, maybe this is only a BC thing), nor does it help those who can't bank on an inheritance.
Why should they come down in value?
Of course it helps them. They don't have to save as much for retirement or their parents can take out a mortgage and provide them with a downpayment. Their grandparents also own property and their parents and grandparents own REITs and rental properties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Canada is also importing PRs at a rate that is frankly insane -- something like 5x that of the US per capita, and heavily concentrated in ~3-4 major cities. It's debatable whether the capacity even exists to build 100k+ units per year in these places, and the strain is showing. (in addition to turning those cities from pretty nice places to overcrowded unlivable hellholes over the past couple decades, with the possible exception of Montreal; I haven't been lately)
I don't think they're that concentrated. Every province is getting a lot of immigrants.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/444906/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/
I'm surprised to see that many heading to Saskitoba TBH -- I would not have imagined the huddled masses yearning for a better life in Moosejaw. But I think my point stands. (other than that the GTA has technically been a bit of a hole since Justin was in short pants -- there's a lot of ruin in a town I guess)
Nova Scotia is also getting a lot of immigration. Most my life, we had very little and there was basically no population growth. Now, it seems like half the population downtown is Indian. I also see a lot of immigrants in smaller towns. Most of them are only here temporarily to get their PR though before they move to Toronto. But the immigration rate of any Canadian province is about as high as any US state.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Montreal is getting fucked slower than the other major cities, but it is still getting fucked.
The effect is slower because Montreal attracts poorer immigrants (as french speakers are prioritized), so the immigrants that arrive here are more competing at the bottom for rents than for houses and condos, but the effect at term is the same, as high rents push more renters to consider ownership.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link