There Is No Housing Crisis | The Walrus
There Is No Housing Crisis | The Walrus
Supply alone will not solve a problem that large sections of the population don’t want to fix
So the meat of the article is splitting hairs over the fact that housing isn't an acute problem and thus not a crisis? Is this the kind of "I'm so smart" bullshit the Walrus wants to drop on a society that can't pluralize collection nouns properly and that also uses "literally" in a figurative sense?
We have people harming women with legislation entitled "protection of women and child act". We have the environmental protection agency allowing aggressively carcinogenic fuel additives into our lakes and rivers.
We're not ready for the thinking required to recognize some Walrus author's obvious intellect, and give him the parade he feels he deserves; or at least some polite applause and a chorus of "hear hear, old chum" around our ornate tobacco pipes in the mahogany-paneled study.
Honestly, Walrus, what the fuck.
Yes, I was going to comment the same thing! By saying “there is no housing crisis“, it implies that there is less of a problem, not more of one. It’s provocative, but misleading. At the very least, the title should’ve been changed to say “It’s not a housing crisis, but a broken housing system“.
But honestly, is that even a useful point to make at length? Everyone knows it’s broken beyond just the short term!
housing isn’t an acute problem and thus not a crisis
Who's to say that is the one true definition of crisis anyway? People call "crisis" anything they feel highly impacting, no matter the acuteness.
I hope people are reading the whole article because it makes some really good points but it really takes too long to make those points
It's excerpted from a book, apparently. That may explain its wordiness.
I asked ChatGPT to summarize it:
The article challenges the notion of a "housing crisis" in Canada and argues that the problem is not a crisis but rather a systemic issue of inequality and exploitation in the rental housing market. The author points out that the term "crisis" implies a temporary and unexpected situation, whereas the housing problem has been a recurring and longstanding issue.
The article highlights that the rental housing market operates to extract income from tenants, benefiting landlords and real estate investors, rather than ensuring secure housing for families. The author argues that the market is not a fair representation of supply and demand dynamics due to fixed land resources and the nature of housing as a long-term investment.
The "supply-side" argument, which claims that increasing housing supply will solve affordability issues, is criticized for serving the interests of developers and landlords. The author provides examples that challenge this argument, showing that even when vacancy rates increased, rents did not decrease significantly.
The article suggests that the term "housing crisis" perpetuates a narrative that the housing system was once functional and has now deviated due to unforeseen circumstances. Instead, the author contends that the housing system has always been skewed towards benefiting a privileged group, and the debate should focus on addressing the underlying power dynamics rather than seeking technical solutions.
In conclusion, the article emphasizes that the housing issue is not a crisis but a deeply rooted problem of inequality and exploitation. It calls for a shift in perspective to address the systemic issues and power dynamics within the housing market.
I gave up because the author is a windbag, tldr for me?
From the above poster
In conclusion, the article emphasizes that the housing issue is not a crisis but a deeply rooted problem of inequality and exploitation. It calls for a shift in perspective to address the systemic issues and power dynamics within the housing market.
This article goes in circles and repeatedly contradicts itself. Basically saying that it's not a failure of the markets, but one of exploitation.
Except, it is exactly a failure of the markets. It states that the exploitation comes from the ability of landowners to charge whatever they want, but they don't address the fact that they can only charge high prices because of the lack of those who are willing to charge low prices. And nobody should be expected to charge a low price if they can charge a high price and still sell/rent easily.
It's an issue of people treating homes as an investment, and that can only happen because the price of homes skyrocket far faster than inflation and wages. And that happens because of a lack of supply.
Sure, treating homes as an investment is fine for apartments and condos, but if the land itself ends up being worth a million for a single lot, there's no way anybody can afford it without both a high wage and putting themselves into debt for a half century. And if that happen, the entire spectrum of housing goes up in price as there is a lack of competition to lower prices.
The only real way to lower home prices (from houses to apartments and condos) is to significantly increase competition, and that can only happen if supply actually comes close to demand, not falling so far behind that people share a single place, even to the point that they bribe the local authorities to look the other way that they have too many people in a single unit.
Except, it is exactly a failure of the markets.
Well, the market is acting rationally given the circumstances. The trouble is that the market is heavily encumbered by regulation, so the cure for high prices being high prices isn't able to exercised.
Is that a market failure, or is it that it is not truly a market, but rather a government program?
The market has exactly zero rationality in it. The market doesn't think or do anything. It's simply economists anthropomorphising a thing that makes money for rich people.
Mostly agree, and I'm not even a communist. Whoever controls the land a society is built on essentially has a license to skim off any excess value added by others. David Ricardo figured this out over 200 years ago. The solution is to tax land, not labor or capital, and capture this excess for public use.
I keep telling people baffled at the apparent inaction that two thirds of Canadian households own properties. If such a large majority of voters own properties, is it any surprise that no significant action that would hurt them is taken? Rather, things work as intended and non-owners are squeezed more than they used to be several years ago.
People don't seem to really care about their kids/grandkids being unable to afford housing. Or, at least, they care less about that than the value of their property continuing to rise fast enough to fund their retirement. Or, maybe, they have enough cash that they can help their own kids, so fuck everyone else, right?
I really think this is about generation divides in wealth; those who have parents able to front them 100K+ to put toward a down payment can get into the market and two the rewards of intergenernational wealth; those who don't are likely doomed to a life of housing insecurity.
My kiddos are young, but my wife and I are trying to ensure we'll have enough extra cash to help our kids but they're first homes. It's the only way they'll be able to afford to live close to us.
It's too abstract. They can't mentally connect their own economic success with everyone else's harm.
People don’t seem to really care about their kids/grandkids being unable to afford housing.
Well, that's because affordability is about the same. Granted, that is because the youth have much cheaper lives than we did. In my day we had to spend $20 to see a movie. The kids these days can watch all the movies for $20. To listen to a song you had to pay $20 too. Today you can listen to any song ever made for free. We dropped $100 a night at the bar. They flip through Tinder. We had to buy $20,000 cars to get anywhere, and let's not even talk about the costs that followed. They toss a few bucks at transit and move around to their heart's content.
There is concern for whether or not they are missing out on their lives because of that. Going to the movies, for example, brought more than just a movie. It was a social adventure. Staying home to watch Netflix is not the same. But it's also hard to judge if that is actually something to be concerned about, or if it's just us trying to re-live our youth? Is one life actually better than the other?
Of course no, super easy for people earning 15$/h part time to rent a 1bd appartement 2000$/month. Or for a couple to buy a 600k condo, 3500$ mortgage + 400$ taxes + 600$ fee per month, 4500$/month is super easy, add power, internet, cellphone, cars, and maybe food? No crisis. Oh I have an idea, let's take 500k to 1M new immigrants per year, it will fix the health and education system! Obviously not fix the housing crisis as there is no crisis.
/s
I believe that the article was making the point that it's kind of strange to call it a crisis when the system is working as it has always worked. Instead of trying yet another way to keep the system working, maybe it's time to redesign the system.
Someone didn't even read the intro to the article...
Oh I have an idea, let's take 500k to 1M new immigrants per year, it will fix the health and education system
Try not to be xenophobic or people may guess your postal code.
The benefits of opening our borders to refugees isn't at debate because we can't be dicks; and we'll mention it only for exclusion. The benefits of opening our borders to qualified young professionals for temporary or permanent residence is very simple math when compared with the costs. It's a simpler and less cruel option to just kill old people, given the numbers, and we're not that cruel by a long shot except where care homes are run by lowest bidd-- oh crap.
I'm an immigrant myself, I have nothing against them, especially refugees