Canada to change how it counts foreign students, workers amid housing crunch
Canada to change how it counts foreign students, workers amid housing crunch
Canada will change how it counts non-permanent residents, the main statistics agency said on Thursday, after an economist said the current methodology may have overlooked about a million foreign students, workers and others.
Canada will change how it counts non-permanent residents, the main statistics agency said on Thursday, after an economist said the current methodology may have overlooked about a million foreign students, workers and others.
You're viewing a single thread.
Nationalise housing.
I love reading comments like these.
Yes, let's turn an entire country's housing stock into the projects.
There's got to be a better way to provide housing than whatever we're doing now, but putting an inept government, run by corrupt or otherwise incompetent career bureaucrats, in charge of the roof over my head would be a hilarious joke if people weren't being completely earnest about it.
Yes, let's turn an entire country's housing stock into the projects.
No fucker wants that, and you're disingenuous for suggesting they do, or that nationalisation of housing means that.
There's got to be a better way to provide housing than whatever we're doing now, but putting an inept government, run by corrupt or otherwise incompetent career bureaucrats, in charge of the roof over my head would be a hilarious joke if people weren't being completely earnest about it.
Another strawman. You think nationalisation of housing happens without a government competent enough to do it?
You might as well complain about buses because they don't work without wheels.
No fucker wants that, and you're disingenuous for suggesting they do, or that nationalisation of housing means that
I'm not saying anyone wants to turn all housing into the projects. I'm saying it's inevitable given how national and local governments have managed housing in my experience.
You think nationalisation of housing happens without a government competent enough to do it?
Maybe? IMO all lifelong government bureaucrats are corrupt and/or incompetent, and the result of putting them in charge of housing everyone would be horrific.
You might as well complain about buses because they don't work without wheels.
I'm not sure I understand what you're attempting to get at with this statement. I will say as a lifelong user of public transportation in my metropolitan area the buses and trains post-COVID have been nightmarish.
Actual nationalisation would be handled by a government that gives a shit about it. So far we have seen this happen in the early Soviet union and in China.
The projects you saw were not nationalised housing. They were a minority of state owned housing, geared towards a neoliberal privatised housing sector.
The fact you call them shit is exactly what what they want. So they can pivot to fully private with no pushback, since their intentional bungling of a tiny stock of state housing went so badly.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make, but I'm pretty happy with my fully "private" housing situation. There's no way in hell I'd want anyone, government or otherwise, controlling where I sleep.
So I guess we agree?
I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating for anyone to control where you sleep.
This entire thread is in response to you posting
Nationalise housing
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I'm pretty sure that means you want a strong central government to take control of the entire housing stock, thus controlling where everyone calls home?
You've rolled quite a few extras into what I said there, seemingly out of nowhere
Why a "strong central government"?
Why are they choosing where people live?
I'm not advocating for either of those, and only a paranoid mind assumes nationalisation would lead to either.
Whether you know it or not, you are defending landlords. Why? They don't benefit you.
You posted:
Actual nationalisation would be handled by a government that gives a shit about it. So far we have seen this happen in the early Soviet union and in China.
Those are examples of strong central governments. "Nationalise" means taking control on a national scale, necessarily requiring a central government.
Why are they choosing where people live?
If the government has a monopoly on the housing stock, then individuals cannot choose what to build or how to permanently modify it since they cannot own their domicile. I was talking less about the geography of where people would live under a nationalized scheme, and more about what the effect on individual choice non-ownership would have.
only a paranoid mind assumes nationalisation would lead to either.
This might be true, but my experience with government run housing bears it out.
you are defending landlords. Why? They don't benefit you.
I will not attempt to defend large corporations and hedge funds owning housing stock. I'm an individual homeowner, so I'm looking out for those who, through some mix of hard work and/or luck, have chosen to own their homes.
I benefit from choosing how I live, where I live, what my home is like, and from accumulating equity. I want to preserve that opportunity for other hard working free people.
As I stated in my first comment, we can certainly improve how we manage housing stock and make it available. Foreign corporations and shadowy hedge funds driving up pricing, and governments manipulating values through tampering with interest rates are places I think we should start looking.
Nationalizing the whole of our housing stock? Nah, I'll pass.
If the government has a monopoly on the housing stock, then individuals cannot choose what to build or how to permanently modify it since they cannot own their domicile.
Of course they can. If a government has gone as far as nationalisation, they've also inevitably also undergone a democratic revolution in the favour of the people, with the people's will leading the construction of new housing. When a person gets a home, it is theirs to have and use or modify as they wish. Why should it be any other way - what would the benefit of that be?
I will not attempt to defend large corporations and hedge funds owning housing stock.
So why parrot their talking points?
I’m an individual homeowner, so I’m looking out for those who, through some mix of hard work and/or luck, have chosen to own their homes.
So why resist the only remaining option for seizing the homes out of the hands of aforementioned hedge funds and corporations?
I benefit from choosing how I live, where I live, what my home is like, and from accumulating equity. I want to preserve that opportunity for other hard working free people.
Because you had enough money to buy a house. Most don't, however hard they work. Because of corporate monopoly and the very existence of landlords removing homes from the hands of hard working people.
As I stated in my first comment, we can certainly improve how we manage housing stock and make it available.
By taking them out of the hands of landlords.
Foreign corporations and shadowy hedge funds driving up pricing, and governments manipulating values through tampering with interest rates are places I think we should start looking
You know why they'd drive up pricing and manipulate interest, right?
Because they're fucking landlords.
Abolish landlording - remove that entire incentive. Of course that couldn't happen with the type of government we have now, so what I'm saying is either a pipe dream or a potential historical document to ponder after some future revolution.
Nationalizing the whole of our housing stock? Nah, I’ll pass.
The only people who'd potentially suffer such a thing would be landlords. I'm sorry, but you're just defending those who are keeping housing away from those who need it.