# Affordable housing ...Boxabl?



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I like the idea of modular and deliverable




















Reserve | Boxabl







www.boxabl.com




Good enough for Elon ...for now at least.









2 Words Explain the Real Reason Elon Musk Lives in a $50,000 Tiny Home


The billionaire's decision to live in a rented pre-fabricated house isn't what you think.




www.inc.com





Two of these would do us in Australia ( we are vaguely considering selling due to high prices  in our very desirable neighbourhood. We've been exploring kits houses here as well. We are tad too close to the storm surge line and might lose cyclone insurance within a few years.
Serviced lots that are affordable also becomes an issue. The monitizaton of shelter with very very few restrictions is in my view a huge failure of societal policy.
There was handwaving at it during the election but nothing of substance.
Either income has to rise to to be carried or rented for 30% of average income or prices plunge 50% or more to get to that.
Happened in 1989 ...likely a combination of the two.

I wonder what Jag would do with a majority?









Decent movie on the 2008 collapse








The Flaw – review


In the informative The Flaw David Sington takes us through the origins of the 2008 banking fiasco, but the documentary isn't utterly clear on what it understands capitalism's "flaw" to be, writes Peter Bradshaw




www.theguardian.com





and this is excellent.





Could be heading there again. ☕


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Same thing most socialists do. Tax the middle class, so they can subsidize the cost homes of other people in the middle class.



MacDoc said:


> I wonder what Jag would do with a majority?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> I like the idea of modular and deliverable
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jagmeet would do what neither the liberals or the conservatives, who both tax the middle class too much won't do, raise taxes significantly on rich corporations. How many reports of multi billionaire corporations who skirt paying any taxes do we have to hear before people start getting it?

Until people stop listening to the rabble spouting nonsense it will continue. As for wages, I recall a number of right wing types on social media shouting about how inflation would skyrocket in Ontario when Wynne raised minimum wage to something closer to where it should be (still not enough!) but as with most things with these sorts, all you have to do is wait it out until the facts come in.  

Honestly, given what we paid for this monster place downtown, if prices fell 30% we'd still be waaaaaay ahead and buying in the same market would work fine. But I dont see that happening. I see a modest fall, with the media shrilly screaming housing crash, much like 2009. give or take.


----------



## TiltAgain (Jun 27, 2016)

MacDoc said:


> _SNIP_
> 
> Two of these would do us in Australia ( we are vaguely considering selling due to high prices  in our very desirable neighbourhood. We've been exploring kits houses here as well. We are tad too close to the storm surge line and might lose cyclone insurance within a few years.
> _SNIP_


Off-topic, sorry, but did you move to Oz?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mostly yes - it was always in the works but covid oddly accelerated it. I still run MacDoc from here but working on a handoff.









10 years riding Down Under


Not motivated to go out today. 31 and bright sun plus reasonably humid.....early for this kind of heat. Nice mid 20s at 5 pm tho.




www.gtamotorcycle.com


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I think the only way I could do a tiny house would be if I had land to put it on. I could not live that way in an urbanized area. I had contemplated going that route but land around here itself is expensive and I did not want to move out too far from work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

wonderings said:


> I think the only way I could do a tiny house would be if I had land to put it on. I could not live that way in an urbanized area. I had contemplated going that route but land around here itself is expensive and I did not want to move out too far from work.


Land is a bigger concern than the cost of the homes. You can't place these tiny homes on extremely expensive city lots and make them affordable. I know of people who live in rural areas and their kids have placed portable starter homes on these immense properties --that's certainly an affordable option. 

Some communities with less expensive land have considered such homes for retirement communities, but the zoning usually doesn't support it without amandments.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The irony here really is that there are hundreds of thousands of ‘tiny homes’ in the sky being sold for several hundred thousand dollars in the form of condos. I visited a friend who rented one for a bit, after some bragging that it was a little bigger than some they saw, I was shocked at how tiny it was!


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I was lucky enough to get into my full renovated 120+ year old home in a beautiful little town, less then a 2 min walk to the river and down town before the real boom hit. I can't imagine starting out and needing to buy a home now, prices are crazy at the moment.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

we sold/bought into our current place in 2009, sold as the housing market was gonna fall, we stayed in a rental condo for a few months and snagged this place at a steep discount, we thought wow how much did we spend... a few said you're gonna regret it, prices have near quadrupled here since. Then there's having a nice place to live we don't have the sort of mortgage Im seeing people take on now... I cant imagine trying to get a place here now.

If there were a housing price crash and everything dropped 50% we'd still have almost doubled our money.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

After reading some of the thread…..and I’m not against tiny homes…but they are a life style….the real cost is, as McFury said, is land cost. Yes there are tiny homes in the sky but land and construction costs contribute to the high prices. Also supply and demand. But most alarmingly to me is how lack of housing in the governments mindset translates to owning a home rather than finding ways to assist the private sector in developing rental properties.

Based on past experience every time the government touches home ownership disaster happens….remember the early 80s…I do….21% 5 year mortgage. Outside of creating a new community of what we would call “war time homes” built under an infrastructure programme they should look at what laws and bylaws are restricting housing development and go from there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ultimately, if you live in a large, growing, landlocked city, housing prices are going to become "unaffordable". You can pass the cost of living there to someone else and make their housing less affordable, but that does not change the cost of that housing. You're right, rps, that a lot of the problem is in bylaws and regulation that restrict the ability of the private sector to respond to a need. Why so many condos? Because rent controls dictated that multi-unit sales were less risky than multi-unit rentals. Now, individual condo owners are landlords. The market always finds a way, so let's make that way more cost-efficient and direct.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Your post is a little hard to understand, given that first, rent control was removed from newer buildings as well as condos a couple years back resulting in huge spikes in rent (many friends found themselves priced out of living downtown pretty quick...) and it certainly hasn't slowed condo construction, have a walk around downtown around the king street area. Massive condos are bing constructed there, Bathurst/bloor and dufferin and Dupont. Just to name a handful.

If rent control were pulled from more rental units downtown, it would most certainly follow the same pattern as condos.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The short version. Applying rent controls to rental apartment buildings did not result in a large supply of lower priced rentals. It resulted in the construction of more condos that could reflect supply and demand in these markets.



groovetube said:


> Your post is a little hard to understand, given that first, rent control was removed from condos a couple years back resulting in huge spikes in rent (many friends found themselves priced out of living downtown pretty quick...) and it certainly hasn't slowed condo construction, have a walk around downtown around the king street area. Massive condos are bing constructed there, Bathurst/bloor and dufferin and Dupont. Just to name a handful.
> 
> If rent control were pulled from more rental units downtown, it would most certainly follow the same pattern as condos.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Your premise is wrong. Rent control was not to create more rental units, how on earth would it do that??? it was to contain the current rents to levels to be affordable by current renters.

And I will point again, there is no rent control on new buildings. Condo construction is currently in hyperspeed. So obviously rent control didn’t ‘cause more condos’, that’s nonsense.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Your premise is wrong. Rent control was not to create more rental units, how on earth would it do that??? it was to contain the current rents to levels to be affordable by current renters.
> 
> And I will point again, there is no rent control on new buildings. Condo construction is currently in hyperspeed.


Groove, while rent controls were removed on new building and conversions in 2018, they still exist, as I understand it, for those tenancy prior….with a rent increase in a 12 month period related to the CPI, which is around 3% . Many landlords, and I see this here in Windsor, got out of renting and converted to condos……i would think Toronto maybe the same. No where do I see rental units being built here….chances are a new rental is from a private owner who can’t make his mortgage and is renting to meet the payments. Also, there are a number of other laws and bylaws other than rent control that can impact the creation of a rental property…many are municipality driven. Housing in one way or another has been an issue in Canada almost since the days of Confederation. Any housing policy must include the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal governments support…in effect, that group is the only one who can finance it. We shouldn’t get into a rental/condo debate….they real question is rental vs ownership…what are the standards which will help people achieve that goal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> Groove, while rent controls were reminded to new building and transfers in 2018, they still exist, as I understand it, for those tenancy prior….with a rent increase in a 12 month period related to the CPI, which is around 3% . Many landlords, and I see this here in Windsor, got out of renting and converted to condos……i would think Toronto maybe the same. No where do I see rental units being built here….chances are a new rental is from a private owner who can’t make his mortgage and is renting to meet the payments. Also, there are a number of other laws and bylaws other than rent control that can impact the creation of a rental property…many are municipality driven. Housing in one way or another has been an issue in Canada almost since the days of Confederation. Any housing policy must include the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal governments support…in effect, that group is the only one who can finance it. We shouldn’t get into a rental/condo debate….they real question is rental bs ownership…what are the standards which will help people achieve that goal.


I can't speak for other municipal policies that may affect new rental unit creation by private companies. I was just addressing the notion that rent control was supposed to create new rental units. Im not sure how anyone would get this idea!

You should see what's being built here currently! I don't see any reason other being mandated by a municipal deal for a private company to create affordable rental units even without rent control as bing insinuated, and you're right that those initiatives need to be dealt with by all 3 levels of government. But this kind of flies in the face of no government involvement let the free market allow private companies do 'the right thing'. Um. Nope


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Read carefully! I did not say rent control was designed to create more rental housing. I said that the result of rent control was not a large stock of low priced rentals.

As to your second point, nobody trusts the government regarding reimposition of rent controls, especially provincial governments such as the one prior to this. This is why there are far more condominium buildings being constructed — eliminating government rent control risk — and few rental buildings being constructed, with minor exception.



groovetube said:


> Your premise is wrong. Rent control was not to create more rental units, how on earth would it do that??? it was to contain the current rents to levels to be affordable by current renters.
> 
> And I will point again, there is no rent control on new buildings. Condo construction is currently in hyperspeed. So obviously rent control didn’t ‘cause more condos’, that’s nonsense.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> I can't speak for other municipal policies that may affect new rental unit creation by private companies. I was just addressing the notion that rent control was supposed to create new rental units. Im not sure how anyone would get this idea!
> 
> You should see what's being built here currently! I don't see any reason other being mandated by a municipal deal for a private company to create affordable rental units even without rent control as bing insinuated, and you're right that those initiatives need to be dealt with by all 3 levels of government. But this kind of flies in the face of no government involvement let the free market allow private companies do 'the right thing'. Um. Nope


From the posts I’ve read I didn’t get the impression that rent control increased units…but I do think, and you have touched on it….housing as an issue requires policies that make sense and are fair for all involved…….pure market, in my experience, will do the right thing only when all other alternatives have been exhausted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> From the posts I’ve read I didn’t get the impression that rent control increased units…but I do think, and you have touched on it….housing as an issue requires policies that make sense and are fair for all involved…….pure market, in my experience, will do the right thing only when all other alternatives have been exhausted.


Markets will create housing at prices people are willing to pay, just as you will take a job at the salary employers are willing to offer. For those levers government can easily push, it doesn't, or at least doesn't see the price of housing as important enough. Knowing that immigration policy results in a large number of people seeking housing in the GTA, the government is creating upward pressure on housing prices (demand increase). The current federal government is flooding the market with liquidity, leading to inflation seen on grocery store shelves and in housing. Low interest rate policy flips the real estate seesaw to price. Imposition of onerous building regulations is making construction more costly and zoning regulations discourage increase in housing supply.

Taking all of these things into consideration, builders and resellers arrive at a price people will pay. If people will not pay it, the price goes down or the supply dwindles.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> From the posts I’ve read I didn’t get the impression that rent control increased units…but I do think, and you have touched on it….housing as an issue requires policies that make sense and are fair for all involved…….pure market, in my experience, will do the right thing only when all other alternatives have been exhausted.


Absolutely and I agree. There has tended to be a fair amount of hot air, ribbons cut and back slapping going on government wise and then misconceptions floating around that really doesn’t take in what’s actually happening on the ground. Meanwhile housing costs are still soaring.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Read carefully! I did not say rent control was designed to create more rental housing. I said that the result of rent control was not a large stock of low priced rentals.
> 
> As to your second point, nobody trusts the government regarding reimposition of rent controls, especially provincial governments such as the one prior to this. This is why there are far more condominium buildings being constructed — eliminating government rent control risk — and few rental buildings being constructed, with minor exception.


I absolutely read carefully. And once again, rent controls did NOT result in all these condos being built. There's no evidence of this. New buildings do not have rent control. You seem to have missed this.


Macfury said:


> The short version. Applying rent controls to rental apartment buildings did not result in a large supply of lower priced rentals. It resulted in the construction of more condos that could reflect supply and demand in these markets.


If you didn’t say rent control was to result in more lower rent units then why did you insinuate it? Of course rent control didn’t result in a large supply, rent control was to moderate _existing_ rent prices. Period. And again, unless you have compelling evidence that rent control was what led to the incredible number of condominiums being built in the last 20 years here and in many cities nationwide, I say nonsense. Rent control was removed from new buildings a few years ago, and it has not resulted in less condo buildings.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The move to condos occurred as a result of rent controls. Once the model proved successful, there was no reason to return to a rental market where a government of the type Ontario elected in 1990 might reimpose those controls.



groovetube said:


> I absolutely read carefully. And once again, rent controls did NOT result in all these condos being built. Pure nonsense. New buildings do not have rent control. You seem to have missed this.


Initially, rent controls were designed to result in stabilization of rent prices of existing units and new units. That large stock of rental housing began to dry up as a result. Again, see above. Developers have no reason to take on the public policy risk of building new rental housing. They are happy to build condos now.



groovetube said:


> If you didn’t say rent control was to result in more lower rent units then why did you insinuate it? Of course rent control didn’t result in a large supply, rent control was to moderate _existing_ rent prices. Period. And again, unless you have compelling evidence that rent control was what led to the incredible number of condominiums being built in the last 20 years here and in many cities nationwide, I say nonsense. Rent control was removed from new buildings a few years ago, and it has not resulted in less condo buildings.


If you think things happened differently, I think you should stick with your interpretation. I was trying to discuss this with rps, who likely shares a similar historical perspective and timeline.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Unfortunately macfury, you have made what I see as incorrect assertions with zero evidence.

There is no rent control on new buildings right now, hasn't been since the ford government dropped it a few years ago, and I don't see developers happily adding to the stock of affordable rental units, what we see here is an incredible number of massive condo developments still. That's the reality on the ground. Unless you have compelling evidence other than assumptions without substantial evidence posted here, I see no reason to accept these opinions.

Thats my final word, until I see hard evidence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They won't build rental units of any sort, except for niche luxury buildings, for fear that government of the sort elected in Ontario in 1990 might reimpose rent controls on all existing rental buildings. Even if they were putting up more rental buildings, they wouldn't feature "affordable" rental units because living in Toronto is not "affordable", given the cost of putting up buildings and the large number of new residents bidding up the price of housing.



groovetube said:


> Unfortunately macfury, you have made what I see as incorrect assertions with zero evidence.
> 
> There is no rent control on new buildings right now, hasn't been since the ford government dropped it a few years ago, and I don't see developers happily adding to the stock of affordable rental units, what we see here is an incredible number of massive condo developments still. That's the reality on the ground. Unless you have compelling evidence other than assumptions without substantial evidence posted here, I see no reason to accept these opinions.
> 
> Thats my final word, until I see hard evidence.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I hate to be cynical but investors will only put money in rental properties when the ROI exceeds the ROI on property sales. This is where legislative danger surfaces....many times governments implement actions that are out of step ....counter-cyclical if you will. By the time they move through their process the situation they were trying to adjust has changed. That is why I say “government legislation invariably hurts those it’s designed to protect.

However, they could do a couple of things....one would be to impose a vacancy assessment for offshore owners....while this might hurt the construction market it might encourage properties to be rented....we have a number of non resident owners here in Windsor and I’m sure Toronto, Vancouver et al has them as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> I hate to be cynical but investors will only put money in rental properties when the ROI exceeds the ROI on property sales. This is where legislative danger surfaces....many times governments implement actions that are out of step ....counter-cyclical if you will. By the time they move through their process the situation they were trying to adjust has changed. That is why I say “government legislation invariably hurts those it’s designed to protect.
> 
> However, they could do a couple of things....one would be to impose a vacancy assessment for offshore owners....while this might hurt the construction market it might encourage properties to be rented....we have a number of non resident owners here in Windsor and I’m sure Toronto, Vancouver et al has them as well.


This is the conundrum. If you don't have some form of rent control, you have uber expensive rental buildings and that has solved nothing. You simply have more of what we have with expensive condo rentals. Same diff. But we have a lot of those! Solves zero for affordable housing. But again, without rent control on new buildings, why are they still building luxury condos at the incredible rate they are? Rent control obviously has nothing to do with it.

You have the right idea, though no matter how you slice this, it takes government regulation to help things. Stating that rent control caused the unprecedented condo construction nationwide for 20 years is without merit.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> This is the conundrum. If you don't have some form of rent control, you have uber expensive rental buildings and that has solved nothing. But again, without rent control on new buildings, why are they still building luxury condos at the incredible rate they are? Rent control obviously has nothing to do with it.
> 
> You have the right idea, though no matter how you slice this, it takes government regulation to help things. Stating that rent control caused the unprecedented condo construction nationwide for 20 years is without merit.


Groove, there are numerous legislative bits in the housing jigsaw puzzle. What we are seeing is the effect of cheap money....that will come back to bite us. We also have an influx of people who want to live in a certain space.....think of an island....everyone wants on it....so the price to get space there goes up......why....because people bid on a space. We’ve all seen stories of properties being sold at huge values over the asking price....this to will come back to haunt us. I personally think the housing solution can be fixed with rapid rail and developing commuter towns outside our major cities...you will never get a break in a metro area. Take your spot, you could sell but where could you go in Toronto without purchasing a property at the same value level and not assume a mortgage....might be near impossible. The way to lower housing costs is to lessen the demand......and that takes non financial entity financing....maybe the CPP could invest. My fear is that an interest rate crunch is coming and many will be underwater....that might cause a drop in prices for ownership seekers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Of course, no doubt. I’m not going to suggest that a blanket rent control system will be the magic pill for affordable housing. I seem to recall a time when an interest rate hike and a housing market crash that affected the condos of the time led to investment companies buying out all the condos in the building and turning it into an investment rental property. The last apartment building I lived in before leaving home was a condominium, it was bought out and I recall the coulple holdouts were seniors in retirement, and they were very not happy with the situation of being the only owners. I never forgot that and thought I’ll never buy one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> I hate to be cynical but investors will only put money in rental properties when the ROI exceeds the ROI on property sales. This is where legislative danger surfaces....many times governments implement actions that are out of step ....counter-cyclical if you will. By the time they move through their process the situation they were trying to adjust has changed. That is why I say “government legislation invariably hurts those it’s designed to protect.
> 
> However, they could do a couple of things....one would be to impose a vacancy assessment for offshore owners....while this might hurt the construction market it might encourage properties to be rented....we have a number of non resident owners here in Windsor and I’m sure Toronto, Vancouver et al has them as well.


Agreed. As individual property owners we don't sell our homes at less than market value because we want housing to be more affordable. Money does not flow to money-losing investments

Land has costs and value. Buildings have cost and value. Opportunity has costs and value. You can shift those costs to other people through taxpayer subsidies, increase supply, or reduce demand.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

MF, somewhere my economics professor is smiling....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Agreed. As individual property owners we don't sell our homes at less than market value because we want housing to be more affordable. Money does not flow to money-losing investments
> 
> Land has costs and value. Buildings have cost and value. Opportunity has costs and value. You can shift those costs to other people through taxpayer subsidies, increase supply, or reduce demand.


That's better.


Rps said:


> MF, somewhere my economics professor is smiling....


I recall back in the mid 80s, many of us artists often rented a drywalled off space in the old warehouse buildings in what we called 'the railway lands'. Dufferin and King. It was super cheap, often 50 cents a sq ft, and you can pretty do whatever, we built studios, entrepreneurs had quasi manufacturing spots (some of which I worked part time in...) and some would skirt the no live in rules with building a modest sleeping area as you were allowed to have a bed in case you needed to 'sleep over'. You just needed to make sure it wasn't obvious it was full time live in, and often some would get a heads up with inspections.

Then came the mid 90s when many protested to change the regulations to allow artists to live in to make affordable live in studios. I remember saying, be careful what you wish for. Sure enough, the regs changed, and then the developers swooped in and started buying up old warehouse buildings and soon enough, most artists were not only out of a place to live but no artist spaces, certainly they were drying up and became far more expensive. Thats when the condos in renovated warehouse buildings began and the railway lands everyone then knew as "liberty village". When I go down there, its always a shock, not to see boarded up buildings with late night transport trucks going in and out (we later found out it was Simpsons or sears whatever using it as a quiet storage area...) and the well know Irwin toys neon sign soon was gone.

There is no one solution, and land is, at a premium here. Given the cost and going rental/purchase rates here in Toronto, the only way is, various government intervention through subsidy/regulation, etc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The question that also needs to be asked. Why should we subsidize people to live in Toronto in particular? How does that help the city? Why would they not choose/be encouraged to live elsewhere?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

If you’re not going to raise the minimum wage, where are you going to have someone make your double double with one sugar, or clean the office building you work in? Not everyone who needs to live within the bounds of Toronto makes enough to pay those kinds of rents. If you think letting the market sort this out is going to work, unfortunately that’s a nice theory, but it fails in the real world.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> If you’re not going to raise the minimum wage, where are you going to have someone make your double double with one sugar, or clean the office building you work in? Not everyone who needs to live within the bounds of Toronto makes enough to pay those kinds of rents. If you think letting the market sort this out is going to work, unfortunately that’s a nice theory, but it fails in the real world.


Wages are another issue….albeit related. Here in Windsor the CERB programme has caused a siphoning of the work force….many would rather collect CERB than work currently…..when CERB runs out I’m sure that will change. However, local companies cannot find workers here and are paying “premium” wages to attract them. So this is a classic case of market action. That said it was driven by, in my opinion, a poorly constructed aid package by the government….now I’m not wanting to go down that rabbit hole here but I can see MF’s point…why would you subsidize people to live in a city where they can’t afford to live. However, the fact that in the GTA, Toronto has the most opportunities is another story…..this is like the joke that the roses died……


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> Wages are another issue….albeit related. Here in Windsor the CERB programme has caused a siphoning of the work force….many would rather collect CERB than work currently…..when CERB runs out I’m sure that will change. However, local companies cannot find workers here and are paying “premium” wages to attract them. So this is a classic case of market action. That said it was driven by, in my opinion, a poorly constructed aid package by the government….now I’m not wanting to go down that rabbit hole here but I can see MF’s point…why would you subsidize people to live in a city where they can’t afford to live. However, the fact that in the GTA, Toronto has the most opportunities is another story…..this is like the joke that the roses died……


I can't agree on this. There is strong evidence to the contrary. That's what they are finding in the US. Ending programs isn't causing people to go back to the workforce as thought. What is occurring however is a strong competition in the labor market. And companies don't like it I imagine. I suspect that's where some of this people don't want to work because of cerb. Many I know who used cerb myself included are hustling work because we want to get back to work. That's what Im seeing.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> I can't agree on this. There is strong evidence to the contrary. That's what they are finding in the US. Ending programs isn't causing people to go back to the workforce as thought. What is occurring however is a strong competition in the labor market. And companies don't like it I imagine. I suspect that's where some of this people don't want to work because of cerb. Many I know who used cerb myself included are hustling work because we want to get back to work. That's what Im seeing.


I think we see things differently…but that could be due to where we live. I feel we are not seeing a strong labour market …. but an emerging job market in some sectors. Calgary is an interesting city with tones of vacant office space….I would think Toronto has the same. All that space held cleaners, coffee sellers, repair people, mail people and such….however during the pandemic many many jobs were stationed off site. My son in Ottawa hasn’t seen his office in almost 2 years. In Windsor I see banks closing branches and trying to move customers to on line only…..that is where the issue will be going forward….will companies in the white collar world go back to the office…..and that will be a major impact in any downtown core. You are in the entertainment business….to say it was devastated would be an understatement…..but certain sectors may not return to prior pandemic levels….we shall see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

There’s no question we will see some changes in future. I don’t know that it will be quite as dramatic as some predict though. It will take some time to transition back to in person work, but it will get there. Large companies will rethink some of their workspace requirements likely, but even my wife’s workplace, a case for remote work if inever saw it, they fully intend to go in person if at least part time very soon. We are still going to see a very large minimum wage workforce here in Toronto, someone still has to work onsite at them and there’s far more of that than we might think. We certainly saw how valuable those workers were during the pandemic.

people make the mistake of writing them off as high school students needing extra money. That is certainly a segment, they often save to put themselves through school… but the number of people supporting families, some working more than one to make enough, it’s far larger than we, who are the lucky ones don’t have to think about.

we have to remember who are the ones pushing free market policies and who the most to gain from record low corporate taxes less regulation and spreading lies about minimum wage. I recall getting into it with someone on FB over Wynne’s minimum wage hike, he railed how it was going to cause less employment and soaring inflation. Pretty dire stuff, and often accompanied with all sorts of references to socialism government overreach and even communism. But as I have always found, you just need to wait a few years to see how it plays out. Turns out employment didn’t fall, and the ‘communists’ didn’t cause our inflation to soar. And he didn’t enjoy me reminding him of this


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Another tidbit to add on the minimum wage thing. Same guy made a lot of posts about how Burger King was going to automate their cashiers because of the proposed minimum wage hikes in the US. I guess the CEO had publically lambasted the ‘socialists’ for this terrible idea and threatened automation. People on social media were like see! It’s a bad idea! The sky is gonna fall!! Riiiiiight. Turns out, Burger King had in fact spent on R&D and had already ran pilot projects to do so years before the proposed minimum raises. It’s always interesting what you find if you look!

anyway this is going off topic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> ... now I’m not wanting to go down that rabbit hole here but I can see MF’s point…why would you subsidize people to live in a city where they can’t afford to live. However, the fact that in the GTA, Toronto has the most opportunities is another story…..this is like the joke that the roses died……


I would go one step further. If you subsidize housing of low income workers so they can continue to take low-wage jobs in unaffordable cities, this acts as a taxpayer subsidy to those industries. Once these people begin to leave the city for work elsewhere, these industries will need to provide a wage that will keep workers living locally.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They had performed R&D and were waiting until the financial equation favoured robots, in the same way as many low-skill jobs will disappear. The minimum wage hikes for these low-skilled workers hastened their replacement.



groovetube said:


> Another tidbit to add on the minimum wage thing. Same guy made a lot of posts about how Burger King was going to automate their cashiers because of the proposed minimum wage hikes in the US. I guess the CEO had publically lambasted the ‘socialists’ for this terrible idea and threatened automation. People on social media were like see! It’s a bad idea! The sky is gonna fall!! Riiiiiight. Turns out, Burger King had in fact spent on R&D and had already ran pilot projects to do so years before the proposed minimum raises. It’s always interesting what you find if you look!
> 
> anyway this is going off topic.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I would go one step further. If you subsidize housing of low income workers so they can continue to take low-wage jobs in unaffordable cities, this acts as a taxpayer subsidy to those industries. Once these people begin to leave the city for work elsewhere, these industries will need to provide a wage that will keep workers living locally.


This brings up an interesting point when we export the what ever……..wouldn’t we have to declare these subsidies as an assist?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> They had performed R&D and were waiting until the financial equation favoured robots, in the same way as many low-skill jobs will disappear. The minimum wage hikes for these low-skilled workers hastened their replacement.


Where did you get that idea? There was no indication anywhere they were ‘waiting’ at all. They were going to replace those workers whether they raised the minimum wage or not. The proposed hike merely gave them some talking points to threaten with. And people bought it!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I would go one step further. If you subsidize housing of low income workers so they can continue to take low-wage jobs in unaffordable cities, this acts as a taxpayer subsidy to those industries. Once these people begin to leave the city for work elsewhere, these industries will need to provide a wage that will keep workers living locally.


As long as low paid workers can find somewhere to live regardless of how horrible it is, multiple families in 3 room apartments, living 3 hours north and taking transit at 4am to get to work, living in cars, whatever, which is already occurring, there is no incentive really for employers to raise wages. Only if there is a really significant lack of workers will they begrudgingly raise it voluntarily. Simply allowing free market to do its magic has proven to not do what many free market enthusiasts promise it will.


Rps said:


> This brings up an interesting point when we export the what ever……..wouldn’t we have to declare these subsidies as an assist?


Interesting thought. Perhaps.

But we have indeed been subsidizing many large corporate companies who makes obscene profits who still pay their workers as little as possible, continually giving them larger and larger tax cuts selling this as a ‘job creator’ when it’s literally never done so. Meanwhile the middle class are the ones who end up with the bill. Either we raise corporate taxes or we make them pay their workers fair livable wages. Waiting around for the magic free market fairy is going to disappoint and put even more money in corporate pockets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There is a point at which you replace those workers. The technology is already there. It just has to make financial sense to replace them. There are technologies that will be deployed if minimum wages go still higher.



groovetube said:


> Where did you get that idea? There was no indication anywhere they were ‘waiting’ at all. They were going to replace those workers whether they raised the minimum wage or not. The proposed hike merely gave them some talking points to threaten with. And people bought it!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The free market (what's left of it) doesn't promise to produce a magic number wage that allows people to live well in exchange for doing work that is not valued by society or that can be done by people with little training. The market is telling them to leave town and find a better living standard. It is telling them that workers without skills and relevant education are not valued.



groovetube said:


> As long as low paid workers can find somewhere to live regardless of how horrible it is, multiple families in 3 room apartments, living 3 hours north and taking transit at 4am to get to work, living in cars, whatever, which is already occurring, there is no incentive really for employers to raise wages. Only if there is a really significant lack of workers will they begrudgingly raise it voluntarily. Simply allowing free market to do its magic has proven to not do what many free market enthusiasts promise it will.


We don't really have a "free market". We have government in bed with large corporations. Raise their taxes by all means--government bureaucrats will use the money to feather their own nests and siphon it off to fund personal projects. By the time each dollar makes it through the government machine, it will buy 25 cents worth of benefits. The corporations will see a tax hike as a pass-along cost to be borne by consumers. 

Pay those workers more than the economic value they represent? Sure! Then pass the costs on to consumers. If a $20 per hour minimum wage will bring prosperity, why not raise it to $40 and see the economy roar to life? In the end, all costs are borne by taxpayers/consumers. People who earn more will be able to bear that easily. Those in the middle class and down will not.



groovetube said:


> But we have indeed been subsidizing many large corporate companies who makes obscene profits who still pay their workers as little as possible, continually giving them larger and larger tax cuts selling this as a ‘job creator’ when it’s literally never done so. Meanwhile the middle class are the ones who end up with the bill. Either we raise corporate taxes or we make them pay their workers fair livable wages. Waiting around for the magic free market fairy is going to disappoint and put even more money in corporate pockets.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> 'Live well?' Seriously? I think we're talking about a basic livable wage. You've somehow conflated the idea, which right there sinks your argument. The free market (what's left of it) doesn't promise to produce a magic number wage that allows people to live well in exchange for doing work that is not valued by society or that can be done by people with little training. The market is telling them to leave town and find a better living standard. It is telling them that workers without skills and relevant education are not valued.


I've heard you say this before. 'Not valued by society'. You couldn't be, more wrong. There's this idea you have, and there's the real world! This pandemic showed that this is complete horsepucky. The essential workers we had that were our lifelines, are the ones being tossed aside with slave wages. This alone should illustrate the sheer insanity of what you are suggesting. It quite simply wrong. The reason they're treated this way, is because we can.




> We don't really have a "free market". We have government in bed with large corporations. Raise their taxes by all means--government bureaucrats will use the money to feather their own nests and siphon it off to fund personal projects. By the time each dollar makes it through the government machine, it will buy 25 cents worth of benefits. The corporations will see a tax hike as a pass-along cost to be borne by consumers.


The 'free market' you yearn for is much like the old feudal system. In fact, we are headed there. Large corporations believe that taxes is confiscation. They dont have any desire to pay into the system that they use to create their wealth. They think that the middle class should be the ones to subsidize their wealth creation, and in return, they expect support from them so the same middle class can create smaller wealth through various things like stocks/RRSP/housing market etc. Both the liberal and conservative government, are in their back pockets.



> Pay those workers more than the economic value they represent? Sure! Then pass the costs on to consumers. If a $20 per hour minimum wage will bring prosperity, why not raise it to $40 and see the economy roar to life? In the end, all costs are borne by taxpayers/consumers. People who earn more will be able to bear that easily. Those in the middle class and down will not.


Someone didn't pay attention in economics class. What price should you charge for your product? What people are willing to pay for it. That’s the simple part. But it blows hole in your idea that corporations will just pass those costs on to consumers. The truth is, if that corp could double their prices tomorrow, without an increase in costs, they quite simply would. I recall someone predicting that there would be less employment, but more specific to this post that costs would spike from businesses employing minimum wage workers when Wynne hiked the minimum wage by a lot. Raises in prices weren't more than before they raised the wages.

I think you tend to theorize things that to you make sense. This equals that, and that's how it should and will work. And then, there's reality on the ground. I have always found that those who propose these magical free market ideas, tend to find themselves facing real facts on the ground a year or 5 later that shows they were entirely incorrect. I asked my learned right wing pal where our spike in inflation was in Ontario a few years later after Wynne's min wage hike, and I think he unfriended me. ha ha ha.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There is a point at which you replace those workers. The technology is already there. It just has to make financial sense to replace them. There are technologies that will be deployed if minimum wages go still higher.


Ive heard people predict this before. I don't think you've looked into the hourly costs of automation. Even if we halved minimum wage, it still would make financial sense in many cases. It's the technology advances R&D etc that companies wait for. Not the minimum wage hikes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Once the technology is inexpensive enough and ready to deploy, of course it will replace unskilled/low-skilled workers, even at half-wages. Raising their wages only accelerates the process, providing higher income for a few months before they're let go. Many such workers are always at risk of being replaced, because their work can be more easily automated.



groovetube said:


> Ive heard people predict this before. I don't think you've looked into the hourly costs of automation. Even if we halved minimum wage, it still would make financial sense in many cases. It's the technology advances R&D etc that companies wait for. Not the minimum wage hikes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You keep saying it accelerates the process. There is no evidence of this. Automation will occur as technology is developed regardless of what minimum wage is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Technology has a price. Labour has a price. Sounds like you believe that businesses simply scoop up the first available technology that will replace human labour at any price. You can buy pizza making robots today from many suppliers. If your premise is correct, why do most Canadian pizza restaurants still employ people?



groovetube said:


> You keep saying it accelerates the process. There is no evidence of this. Automation will occur as technology is developed regardless of what minimum wage is.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Nowhere in my post have I suggested any such thing. Making something up that another said instead of answering the question is no way to have a conversation. I simply addressed your assertion that raising the minimum wage accelerates automation. That’s it. Either you have some facts on this or you don’t. I have to date not found anything that would suggest this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your quote: "It's the technology advances R&D etc that companies wait for. Not the minimum wage hikes."



groovetube said:


> Nowhere in my post have I suggested any such thing. Making something up that another said instead of answering the question is no way to have a conversation. I simply addressed your assertion that raising the minimum wage accelerates automation. That’s it. Either you have some facts on this or you don’t. I have to date not found anything that would suggest this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Which says… what macfury? Those words clearly decouple the advances in automation from minimum wage raises.

so it stands.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So if companies simply replace workers with capable machinery, decoupled from wage hikes, why do so many pizza restaurants continue to employ people?



groovetube said:


> Which says… what macfury? Those words clearly decouple the advances in automation from minimum wage raises.
> 
> so it stands.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don’t know the pizza business. Sorry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, pick a business that you know more about--one where automated replacements are already available. We'll talk about that one instead.



groovetube said:


> I don’t know the pizza business. Sorry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I’m always amused by anyone who make statements without any facts, and then demand others look things up for them.


----------



## Vader101 (Oct 3, 2021)

Let’s move the discussion back to affordable housing. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to continue this line of discussion.

Thanks


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not sure if this box of rocks will help or hinder in the long run….but I see their point.








Could New Zealand's radical new housing law help Canada curb its skyrocketing real estate prices?


New Zealand is currently plagued by a real estate market that is even more unaffordable than Canada’s




nationalpost.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't support any legislation designed to remove planning from the local level. The OMB/OLT has done incredible harm in past decades. Essentially, NZ's federal plan provides a temprorary panacea, while downloadng increased infrastructure support costs to the municipalities.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> Not sure if this box of rocks will help or hinder in the long run….but I see their point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're kinda headed there, although slower. I am seeing laneway houses pop up, there's already 3 or 4 nice ones in my laneway.

We often joke that when we retire we'll sell the house, and build another story on our red brick 2 car garage and keep that part. Condo alternative?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I’m really torn on what NZ is doing....I’ve seen instances where human nature seems to try to take advantage of legislative gaps.....I’m thinking it’s going to be a hallmark of unintended consequences....

MF and Groove you both know I’m a “rule” guy....not rules for the sake of rules...but ones that make sense......I’m thinking NZ is being one issue sighted here....but time will tell.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Was it England where they discovered there was no rules about digging further down for more ‘basement floors’ so they started going down several more floors? That’s a good example of finding some loopholes. I haven’t read lately if they closed that one or came up with some rules on that.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Was it England where they discovered there was no rules about digging further down for more ‘basement floors’ so they started going down several more floors? That’s a good example of finding some loopholes. I haven’t read lately if they closed that one or came up with some rules on that.


It could be as I have watched a few tv shows on some homes in London where they are 3 stories below ground....they even had a swimming pool underground.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> ...they even had a swimming pool underground.


They may as well, as it's pretty hard to pump pressurized groundwater out of a three-storey excavation!


----------

