14 August 2025 — A big topic in the Canadian news cycle is housing—its prices, how many homes are (not) being built, and how much money is to be made in real
Fuck, this article was spitting truth and I love it.
A mild decrease in average home sale price ain’t touching affordability. Prices need to drop at LEAST 50% across the board for some semblance of sanity to return.
Of course, the loss of construction jobs and housing projects getting canned are very real issues, but CTV neglects to mention that these cancelled projects are mostly luxury condos built for speculation, not affordable housing. This is one more consequence of the financialization of housing.
We will, but it’s going to take 20-30 years before we can pass the policies that do that, and it will probably take another 10-20 after that to see any real effect.
The one thing everyone conveniently ignores about housing prices, is that at least in Canada, about 65% of residential properties are owned by the family that lives in them. Those are voters. They will not vote for a politician that’s proposing to to delete hundreds of thousands of dollars of their home equity.
Once home ownership rates drop we will start seeing more policy changes, but that’s going to take decades to happen hence my timeline above.
Yes, which means it will take clarity of vision, political courage, speaking the truth, and policy alternatives.
“Your equity will be halved but so will your mortgage because we oblige the banks to sell off half of it to the government, and we then forgive it.”
“Your equity will be halved but your kids will be able to raise your grandkids within a 20 minute drive from you.”
“Your equity will be halved but you won’t need to worry about your retirement because of our new old age quality of life program.”
Etc, etc. A government that actually wants to solve a problem can always do it. Just see how all obstacles can be made to disappear when it comes to national security issues.
Plus, you don’t need to convince everyone, just secure pluralities in a majority of ridings.
about 65% of residential properties are owned by the family that lives in them.
The actual stat is about 65% of Canadians live in an owner occupied home. This would cover situations like an adult renting a room, or someone renting a basement suite where the owner lives above.
The number is close enough for discussions, especially when you remember that home owners themselves are far more likely to vote demographically speaking.
I find that stat is used to suggest that around 65% of Canadians benefit from and would support maintaining housing prices, but a lot of people covered in that 65% are still in extractive rental situations, or are children of the homeowner (adult or otherwise) who would presumably like to move out at some point.
Children do tend to benefit from that home, regardless of if they want to move out. They’re the ones usually getting it as part of their inheritance. In addition, they may still vote to preserve the home value of their parents in the hope of not needing to support them directly if it were to disappear.
Either way, the balance of voting is still heavily in the favour of home owners or people who think that homes should be investment vehicles right now. That was really my underlying point, how far it is in favour will factor into how long it takes to change, but it’s definitely not going to be today or tomorrow.
Fuck, this article was spitting truth and I love it.
A mild decrease in average home sale price ain’t touching affordability. Prices need to drop at LEAST 50% across the board for some semblance of sanity to return.
Doubt we’ll ever see that, though.
Yup I loved this part:
We will, but it’s going to take 20-30 years before we can pass the policies that do that, and it will probably take another 10-20 after that to see any real effect.
The one thing everyone conveniently ignores about housing prices, is that at least in Canada, about 65% of residential properties are owned by the family that lives in them. Those are voters. They will not vote for a politician that’s proposing to to delete hundreds of thousands of dollars of their home equity.
Once home ownership rates drop we will start seeing more policy changes, but that’s going to take decades to happen hence my timeline above.
Yes, which means it will take clarity of vision, political courage, speaking the truth, and policy alternatives.
“Your equity will be halved but so will your mortgage because we oblige the banks to sell off half of it to the government, and we then forgive it.”
“Your equity will be halved but your kids will be able to raise your grandkids within a 20 minute drive from you.”
“Your equity will be halved but you won’t need to worry about your retirement because of our new old age quality of life program.”
Etc, etc. A government that actually wants to solve a problem can always do it. Just see how all obstacles can be made to disappear when it comes to national security issues.
Plus, you don’t need to convince everyone, just secure pluralities in a majority of ridings.
Very much this. This is how you do it. You give something material to people instead of relying on their idealism. Then they vote for the right thing.
The actual stat is about 65% of Canadians live in an owner occupied home. This would cover situations like an adult renting a room, or someone renting a basement suite where the owner lives above.
The number is close enough for discussions, especially when you remember that home owners themselves are far more likely to vote demographically speaking.
I find that stat is used to suggest that around 65% of Canadians benefit from and would support maintaining housing prices, but a lot of people covered in that 65% are still in extractive rental situations, or are children of the homeowner (adult or otherwise) who would presumably like to move out at some point.
Children do tend to benefit from that home, regardless of if they want to move out. They’re the ones usually getting it as part of their inheritance. In addition, they may still vote to preserve the home value of their parents in the hope of not needing to support them directly if it were to disappear.
Either way, the balance of voting is still heavily in the favour of home owners or people who think that homes should be investment vehicles right now. That was really my underlying point, how far it is in favour will factor into how long it takes to change, but it’s definitely not going to be today or tomorrow.
Yeah, treating homes as an investment or retirement fund is probably the difficult thing to address as too many people who rely on it are too far in.