Live data from Hacker News

Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

voanews.com

351–360 of 619 posts

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasons we don’t have enough homes is because governments have made it illegal to build enough new homes to meet demand. You are essentially say that the presence of car collectors leads to car shortages.

Those things are not the same though! Cars and Houses do not perform in the same way financially. Houses tend to increase in value, Cars tend to decline in value. There are, of course, outliers in both markets.

Sorry, but no. Land sometimes appreciate in value. The homes built on the land nearly always depreciate in value.

And when land appreciates in value (aka by being near schools, hospitals, and well-paying jobs), we distribute the higher cost of the land among multiple homes by building taller, denser types of housing. This is presently illegal in much of the US however.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#352
post #212

I don't blame Canada. The country is running out of space really fast and they lack the technology to build more than 1 floor of house. Unlike massive countries like South Korea, they can't fit 50 million people. Can you imagine being forced to live in slum like conditions without a half-acre yard or at least 3 parking spots? We are a developed country, do you expect us to park on the streets like the 3rd world ? If…

Sardine-can conditions become less necessary by the day as more industries move to WFH. Who chooses to live in Manhattan if their job doesn't demand it? Demand for nicer living conditions with lawns, space, garages, and fresh air will rise as the urban exodus continues. The city is obsolete in the era of WFH. Let these unnatural aberrations recede. Humans were meant to live in small tribes and we see how their progra…

I find this to be a bewildering opinion. I get that people are wired different, but I am surprised that you aren't capable of envisioning a situation where a huge percent of the world chooses to live in a city.

> The city is obsolete in the era of WFH

The first thing I did after negotiating WFH is to move to a dense neighborhood of NYC (soon).

> Demand for nicer living conditions

I am. I want to walk down to local markets & restaurants. I want to go anywhere in the city without exposing myself to the main cause of youth death (cars). When I am travel to another part of town, I'd rather absentmindedly read a book, than be stuck paying attention in bumper2bumper traffic.

I want 100s of activities, cuisines & communities to be at my disposal when I want to access them. I don't want to have to ferry my future children around everywhere. I would much prefer a big bustling park with trees like Boston Common or Central Park, than a lousy unsustainable private mound of grass.

I love fresh air & low noise pollution. I wonder what's causing them. Can't be the folks in cars commuting from their beautiful suburbs can it ? [1] [2] [3]

Why do people think that cities have to concrete jungles with no social life & huge amounts of crime. Cities (esp. NYC) are safer than almost everywhere in the US. Having friends & tons of activities nearby encourages social behavior and having parks be in shared spaces means that they continue to be well funded and environmentally sustainable means you can be a lot more ambitious about the kind of big trees and gardens that can have.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230102070924/https://www.nytim...

[2] https://youtu.be/cO6txCZpbsQ?t=55

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8&t=2s

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth Totally agree. But the counterpart of that is rising housing costs. If you accept that tradeoff, you aren't a NIMBY. This covers many homeowners. But renters opposed to development while complaining about housing costs are trying to suppress their housing costs by increasing others'. That exte…

Thank you for taking the time to make a nice reply, and for not taking my criticism of your post personally. I really appreciate that. I feel like you have a very arbitrary definition of NIMBY. I'm writing this post right now from the 14th floor of a highrise building in Sydney's inner city, in the apartment I rent from a landlord who lives in mainland China. There are still rows of historic terrace houses in the nea…

> a very arbitrary definition of NIMBY

NIMBY means not in my backyard. As in, I want the benefits of a thing but not its cost. Wanting affordable housing while denying development is NIMBY. Saying no development because you want higher property prices is not NIMBY, it's prohibitionism. (Depending on the environment, it could be reasonable and/or heartless.)

> been told by people who would know that one of Sydney's big problems is that property developers are able to artificially inflate property value by staggering the release of newly developed property onto the market

This is prudent pipeline management. Why would you bid up the cost of materials and labor only to dump the finished product at a loss?

On supply and demand: American house prices are elastic, but over long timelines [1]. In Sydney, dense housing is more elastic than detached housing [2]. The abundance of those historic terrace houses, together with long development approval times, cause the high prices and relative price inelasticity.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00941...

[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8462....

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we know they can't and won't go up forever in those countries as they mostly have a declining birth rate, a long with many other countries. So going to be a fun crash?

That can, and will, be pushed out for generations. It's a declining birth RATE—there are still more people. Plenty more people. And we will continue to limit the number of homes. If we need to, we will shrink the number of homes available. Home values must go up. They will go up. You should bet on them going up. Because if, for some reason that were to reverse global finance implodes and nothing else really matters.…

This, unfortunately, is correct. The birth rate means jack shit. People with the capital to do so will just buy multiple homes. Holiday homes, homes closer to work, rental properties etc. If the crash ever came it would be so bad it would make the Great Depression look like a picnic. This is why governments will go to ludicrous measures such as bailing out the banks during the financial crisis and then pumping the markets with money for an entire decade (!!!) afterwards. The problem is that the system might well collapse anyway. Here in the UK we seem to be right in the center of it and it’s not looking good. The health system is on the verge of collapse and almost every public profession is striking or in the process of voting to strike and there’s now talk of coordinated action between the unions for maximum pain because the government is flat out refusing to talk.

I’ve said it before but I will say it again: the government came out and said during Covid that we were essentially running a war time economy. And the war in Ukraine and the disruption it is causing means we’re essentially still in one. During WW2, tax on the wealthiest in society was around 90%. To be quite frank, that kind of tax rate for a few years on the super rich and the globo corps is the only thing that is going to turn the ship around. No-one expects that as a long term solution, no-one is saying that is how it should always be, but in times of real, actual crisis like this, the super wealthy have to step up and take responsibility to save the system they have profited from. Temporary, very high tax rates to get some normality back and then the cycle can start over again. The poor cannot shoulder the burden anymore because they’ve been shouldering it for the last decade. They have nothing left to give and there is nothing left to cut from public services.

The problem we have today is that the super rich now have very little ties to their own countries. They are hyper mobile with private jets, multiple passports, secret tax havens, and armies of lawyers and accountants to hide money and assets. They don’t have the same pride or sense of civic duty they once did in 1939-1945 where many of them took command positions in the war or oversaw industrial production. Nowadays, they are all snapping up mansions in New Zealand and other perceived safe havens in case shit goes sideways and governments decide to play hardball. Getting them to pay their fair share to keep the system running would be exceptionally difficult, perhaps even impossible.

So where does that leave us? With either a form of brutal neo-feudalism and potentially a peasant revolt or, perhaps most likely, a technology driven dystopia where enough of the populous is given just enough support to survive. Creative can kicking accounting from the civil service to quell the threat. To make it more tolerable, the populous will be plowed with endless distractions to sedate them into compliance. Bread and circuses, quite literally the standard playbook for millennia.

Eventually, once the surplus older generations have died off and the global birth rate has declined sufficiently everywhere, all of the world’s wealth will have been concentrated into a smaller set of hands and enough resources will be in circulation that life will be comfortable once again. A generation or two will go by with no direct experience of the hardships of the past and they will start living large again. Borrowing from tomorrow to pay for today. And thus the cycle continues…

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things are not the same though! Cars and Houses do not perform in the same way financially. Houses tend to increase in value, Cars tend to decline in value. There are, of course, outliers in both markets.

Sorry, but no. Land sometimes appreciate in value. The homes built on the land nearly always depreciate in value. And when land appreciates in value (aka by being near schools, hospitals, and well-paying jobs), we distribute the higher cost of the land among multiple homes by building taller, denser types of housing. This is presently illegal in much of the US however.

Many SFH's here in Seattle are being torn down to build multiple 3 story town homes with no yards and rooftop decks (I live in one). They still go for a million, but there are plenty of people here with that purchasing power to buy them.

Still cheaper than a 2 bedroom apartment in Beijing.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of being critical of the decisions of others, what do you suggest? Arm chair critics are a dime a dozen, what are your ideas on how to address the housing problems?

Zone every inch of currently settled land to allow 6 story mixed use buildings, by right. Don’t require anything to build besides engineering and safety checks - no chance for NIMBY input. Do this federally.

I agree with this in totality. Preserving undeveloped wetlands is a way more important than preserving some boomers stake in a low density suburb.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#357
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily see a problem with point 2. Renting a house often creates supply. The owner will create a basement suite or a nanny suite over the garage. If housing shortage was solved then that also kills the profit motive of renting out all but the most ideal houses for renting. The root cause in Canada is the neoliberal policy that started in the 90s that ended government building low income housing. They lef…

>They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because that’s profitable for builders and largely left the poor/young to be screwed. Is that true? I'd imagine building a big block of, say, 100 units to be far more capital efficient than building a few freestanding homes, if zoning laws allowed it.

I honestly donno a lot about the US and it’s “projects”, but my understanding is large blocks of units in the US or the west tend to be built and left to rot.

Other than Singapore are there any blocks of units that don’t get run down over time and left to rot? (Seriously question as I’m curious)

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because that’s profitable for builders and largely left the poor/young to be screwed. Is that true? I'd imagine building a big block of, say, 100 units to be far more capital efficient than building a few freestanding homes, if zoning laws allowed it.

I honestly donno a lot about the US and it’s “projects”, but my understanding is large blocks of units in the US or the west tend to be built and left to rot. Other than Singapore are there any blocks of units that don’t get run down over time and left to rot? (Seriously question as I’m curious)

Cooperative housing where the tenants are the owners.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#359
post #236
post #212

I don't blame Canada. The country is running out of space really fast and they lack the technology to build more than 1 floor of house. Unlike massive countries like South Korea, they can't fit 50 million people. Can you imagine being forced to live in slum like conditions without a half-acre yard or at least 3 parking spots? We are a developed country, do you expect us to park on the streets like the 3rd world ? If…

Would you be able to please expand on this and explicitly say what you want to say? Wondering what you mean by "sprawly nations".

Car-centric nations.

Canada and the US lead the way.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasons we don’t have enough homes is because governments have made it illegal to build enough new homes to meet demand. > You are essentially say that the presence of car collectors leads to car shortages. The price of a old car, a new car, a cheap car, and an expensive luxuary car, all vary greatly. Cars are more or less open for purchase by everyone. Houses a fixed in a location, you cannot pick it up and mo…

> It's MUCH harder to buy an empty lot, and get a loan from a bank to build a house on that lot now. No it’s not https://www.lendingtree.com/home/fha/getting-an-fha-construc...

This appears to be the US? It’s not as easy in NZ/AU. While you can do it, the average joe would probably throw in the towel on the whole process.

Also the US still has states you can find good jobs in with houses that are still 200k. In the likes of NZ You have Auckland and wellington and prices that far exceed majority middle income workers.

Post reply on HN