[Rancid]

Happened to me once. The landlord by law has to give you a months rent as compensation. I was planning to move out anyways since he was clearly a slumlord piece of shit taking advantage of new immigrants so I got a free wad of cash out of him

He was a real estate agent too, he knew exactly what he was doing. But unlike the new immigrant renters I knew the law and would hound him for the law he was breaking and trying to screw me and the other renters on. The landlord even tried tp get us to mow the grass and shovel the snow on the property

To @Pants-of-dog's point. Isn't it kind of a shitty system if people like immigrants are going to be taken for a ride because they don't know/understand? It's explotive. Thankfully, you knew better, but so many don't. Kind of fucked up.

[Pants-of-dog]

No different than measure a country's development today. A country's economic wealth, political stability, education levels, health outcomes, and technological advancement can be measured and compared.

I mentioned boat building but never mentioned British boat building. The Spanish had the most advanced navy in the world in the late 1400's and were the first at the time to travel to the Americas and explore further around the African coastline that had ever happened before by ship.

Progress in terms economic wealth, political stability, education, health technology and outcomes, and technological advancement

Advancement in terms economic wealth, political stability, education, health technology and outcomes, and technological advancement etc of each society in the world didn't start in 1492. Colonialism definitely changed some things but also largely continued, entrenched, or even deepened power discrepancies that already existed prior to that point. If colonialism by European and Asian states over the last 500 years never happened you could make the argument that the sub-Saharan African societies or indigenous societies of the Americas might be better off today but it seems very unlikely that they would have caught up to Western Europe or the more advanced Asian nations given the very large head start Europe and Asia had. Indigenous people of the Americas weren't even literate and didn't have an alphabet/writing system in 1492 and were essentially still in the Stone Age and hunter-gatherer stage for various reasons, like a lack of access to domesticated animals for food or land travel (i.e. no horses).

I am not entertaining this racist tangent any longer.

Do you disagree that colonialism was the main reason why some countries are developed and others are not?

[Unthinking Majority]

To @Pants-of-dog's point. Isn't it kind of a shitty system if people like immigrants are going to be taken for a ride because they don't know/understand? It's explotive. Thankfully, you knew better, but so many don't. Kind of fucked up.

Yeah but how do you prevent it? You can pass laws but if you don't know the law because you're new then you're stuck. Maybe they can give out some pamphlets on the their rights when they arrive, but people don't even read that stuff.

[Unthinking Majority]

I am not entertaining this racist tangent any longer.

What's racist about anything I said? "That's racist" is not a valid argument against facts. If there's facts and logic you disagree with then list it and explain why, otherwise I'll assume you concede the points.

Do you disagree that colonialism was the main reason why some countries are developed and others are not?

Yes i'm pretty confident this is the case with some countries. And i'm sure numerous countries are now richer or poorer because of colonialism.

[paeng]

Also, in several countries the level of productivity is rising faster than income, or the amount earned by businesses per worker rising faster than the ave. wage paid per worker.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah but how do you prevent it? You can pass laws but if you don't know the law because you're new then you're stuck. Maybe they can give out some pamphlets on the their rights when they arrive, but people don't even read that stuff.

You stop making housing a business and make it a public service.

[Unthinking Majority]

You stop making housing a business and make it a public service.

You're essentially arguing for the government to raise taxes by hundreds of thousands of dollars from everyone so it can afford to buy out all the housing property in the country, or just steal it all with no compensation, and then expecting a government-run monopoly to be run well, with little corruption, waste, or mismanagement. Building/reno'ing homes, maintenance/property management, people acquiring or changing homes without some huge waitlist because the government is super slow at most things etc.

Consecutive Canadian Prime Ministers can't even manage their own residence, let alone every property in the country. They've been waffling around renovating the Prime Minister's residence for decades and it hasn't been lived in for many years. Their entire government procurement apparatus is completely dysfunctional and it takes forever to procure most anything significant, but you want them to run our housing sector?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/2 ... e-00118911

And what happens when the public servant managing the property kicks the recent immigrant out so his kid can move in? Or gives their parking spot to someone else, or refuses to mow the grass, or asks for bribes? And what is the incentive for the property manager to do repairs or care if another tenant is making lots of noise in the middle of the night? It's not like the unionized public servant is going to get fired for not doing his job well, and there's no financial incentive for them to care.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're essentially arguing for the government to raise taxes by hundreds of thousands of dollars from everyone so it can afford to buy out all the housing property in the country, or just steal it all with no compensation, and then expecting a government-run monopoly to be run well, with little corruption, waste, or mismanagement. Building/reno'ing homes, maintenance/property management, people acquiring or changing homes without some huge waitlist because the government is super slow at most things etc.

Public housing would do a better job than the current system.

Consecutive Canadian Prime Ministers can't even manage their own residence, let alone every property in the country. They've been waffling around renovating the Prime Minister's residence for decades and it hasn't been lived in for many years.

Their entire government procurement apparatus is completely dysfunctional and it takes forever to procure most anything significant, but you want them to run our housing sector?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/2 ... e-00118911

This is not an example of low income housing for the masses.

And what happens when the public servant managing the property kicks the recent immigrant out so his kid can move in?
Or gives their parking spot to someone else, or refuses to mow the grass, or asks for bribes?

Private housing has a profit motive to make people do things like this. The person running the public housing has no such incentive.

And what is the incentive for the property manager to do repairs or care if another tenant is making lots of noise in the middle of the night? It's not like the unionized public servant is going to get fired for not doing his job well, and there's no financial incentive for them to care.

And private landlords have an incentive to not do repairs at all. This is called “reducing your overhead”.

And landlords do not fire themselves, so in the real world right now, these problems already exist and, in fact, are bigger problems,

[Unthinking Majority]

Public housing would do a better job than the current system.

Based on what? A total guess on your part based on zero real world evidence.

The current system was working fine until the government mismanaged things. Canada has had too many immigrants and foreign students imported by the federal government too quickly combined with no regulation for people buying investment property to take advantage of the rising housing prices, whether domestic or foreign owned. The demand has spiraled out of the control, much faster than new builds can keep up, especially with government red tape.

We could argue that some of this has to do with corruption by developers and banks lobbying the government. But obviously this corruption wouldn't go away if the government becomes their only client regarding housing, nor would it go away if the entire economy became communist as you would advocate, as all real world communist countries have shown, including the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.

This is not an example of low income housing for the masses.

No its an example of government housing mismanagement.

Private housing has a profit motive to make people do things like this. The person running the public housing has no such incentive.

And private landlords have an incentive to not do repairs at all. This is called “reducing your overhead”.

And landlords do not fire themselves, so in the real world right now, these problems already exist and, in fact, are bigger problems,

So far you've ignored all problems that will occur with public ownership of the real estate sector and greatly oversimplified a complex set of variables. The complete lack of foresight and understanding of unintended consequences regarding this variables proves my point that you have absolutely no idea what will occur if housing was 100% socialized, including whether it will be better or not than the current system, or the current system if it were better regulated and managed. And the vast majority of Canadians agree.

[Pants-of-dog]

Based on what?

On simple economics.

and in the observed fact that developers and landlords have no financial incentive to provide affordable housing and all the incentives to provide “luxury” housing.

The current system was working fine until the government mismanaged things.

The Canadian government does not handle housing beyond development of the National Building Code (NBC for short).

Canada has had too many immigrants and foreign students imported by the federal government too quickly combined with no regulation for people buying investment property to take advantage of the rising housing prices, whether domestic or foreign owned. The demand has spiraled out of the control, much faster than new builds can keep up, especially with government red tape.

No, the foreign student housing situation has little effect on the overall market because the number of foreign students is not the important number. What is important is the number of students arriving in a year minus the number who have left that year.

And in large urban centres, these kids are not living in single family dwellings. They live in one bedroom apartments.

We could argue that some of this has to do with corruption by developers and banks lobbying the government.

It is not corruption. Developers and landlords getting rid of affordable housing and turning it into expensive housing is legal, done openly.

But obviously this corruption wouldn't go away if the government becomes their only client regarding housing, nor would it go away if the entire economy became communist as you would advocate, as all real world communist countries have shown, including the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.

Cuba has more successful housing than other countries in Central America and the Caribbean.

And countries that have spent a lot in affordable public housing have lower rates of homelessness. And more affordable housing.

No its an example of government housing mismanagement.

Not according to your article. Problems exist around whether or not this is a historical building. Public housing groups like the CMHC have nothing to do with it.

So far you've ignored all problems that will occur with public ownership of the real estate sector and greatly oversimplified a complex set of variables. The complete lack of foresight and understanding of unintended consequences regarding this variables proves my point that you have absolutely no idea what will occur if housing was 100% socialized, including whether it will be better or not than the current system, or the current system if it were better regulated and managed. And the vast majority of Canadians agree.

Again, there are profit incentives that impel landlords to ignore maintenance, or force the tenants to do the work.

There are profit incentives that motivate landlords to evict low paying renters and replace them with high rent payers.

There are profit incentives for developers to eschew affordable housing and build expensive housing.

There are profit increases for developers and landlords to pay bribes to regulators to provide substandard housing.

Do you disagree?