no excuse at all.. hes been well aware for several videos of how scummy and hated they are, he has a vast viewership and a patreon.. simple greed at this point, too bad i liked the content but no quams cutting EE of the watchlist i need to cut down on the YT screen time anyway
he doesn't advertise in a deceptive way like most of the ads which started the controversy, he advertises it as a "funny little gift" - I see nothing wrong with that
Just a heads up that Established Titles has been accused of scamming customers and has been exposed as lying on many claims they make. Please reconsider taking their money!
'If government policy artificially pushed down house prices...' The problem being is that current government policies artificially push up house prices
Why is universal healthcare through taxes fine for most, but universal housing through taxes is treated the way Americans treat universal healthcare (ie the spawn of socialist satan)?
If the government announced tomorrow that they are going to implement a policy that would reduce the price of housing by 20% there would be riots the next day. The vast majority of Canadians, over 2/3rds, own the place where they live. I would like the price of houses to come down, just not MY house.
I live in Vancouver. I've seen my mortgage payments go from 41% to 63% of my net income in 2 years. Meanwhile, everything else has gotten more expensive as well.
Housing prices have fallen over the past year thanks to interest rate hikes which is good for new buyers, but the majority of existing homeowners have variable rate mortgages so the rate hikes have caused mortgage payments to skyrocket.
@@JollyOldCanuckyou’d think that foreigners would have learned from the mistakes of us Americans when adjustable rate mortgages led to the housing crash… and new buyers buying in at high fixed rates is not good at all. Housing prices have fallen, but not nearly enough, and those higher interest rates are leading to higher mortgage payments and higher end prices than before.
@@Pantsinabucket give it a year and I bet the housing market will be down 20%. There’s been a small bounce back in the economy, and if it persists, the BoC said they’d jack up interest rates even more. Either inflation slowly comes down, or it quickly comes down in a crash. Both are going to bring down housing prices.
The 2-year Foreign Buyer Ban is typical Canadian legislation: Looks good on paper, but falls apart upon application. You could say they are fond of turning their legislation into paper mache before they are allowed to leave the House of Commons.
People are acknowledging it’s a gag gift. If you don’t like gag gifts… don’t buy them? EDIT: If anyone really believes the title was EVER anything beyond your cousin swearing fealty and going around calling yourself “M’lord” they need to go back to LARPing.
@@HistoricalWeapons That’s like saying “no actual money sent to those in need” for a charity. That is always a risk you run when buying something from a charity where “X percent of proceeds go to blah blah blah”.
The Established Titles sponsorship isn't an accident. The blurb in the description has all the convenient revisions about it being just a "fun novelty gift" that ET did for damage control only after the deceptive marketing came to light.
Government zoning most land for single family homes only prevents economically efficient utilization of the land and forces homes to be expensive. San Jose has 94% of its land exclusive to single family homes and it's got one of the worst housing crises in the world. Before asking whether government should intervene to make housing cheaper, I would ask that it first intervene less in policies that push up prices.
Because anyone with an IQ higher than the temperature of the room they're currently sitting in has always been able to tell it was a gag gift since long before anyone was up in arms over it. The same way I can buy a T shirt that says I'm the President of the United States, although I am clearly not. That doesn't make the shirt a scam.
@@IFRYRCE They initially marketed ET as a way to gain an official title through a loophole in Scottish law, and got people to buy their product as a result. It was deceptive advertising at the very least.
@IFRYRCE I think Scott Shaffer's video was the first. In his video he outlines the advertising guidelines set by Established Titles. Also their website was almost immediately changed, but it's still on the Wayback Machine. So maybe take a look at it.
@@cjmhall I saw the pre-controversy ads on easily half a dozen channels that I regularly watch. At no point did I believe buying that would ever confer any legal landownership or title on me. E.T.'s website has always had a statement about it being based on a custom, not law - you can use the wayback machine to check for yourself, I did. The premise that for $50 you can become Scottish nobility is ridiculous enough on the face of it that you should not need a disclaimer it's a gag.
@@scharfschtze I did. This is the text from May 2020. I don't find it misleading, and I also find the idea that anyone could seriously think they're nobility for $50 ridiculous. I mean, it's got an asterisk right after the first sentence. How much hand holding do people require? Purchase a personal Lordship or Ladyship Title Pack with dedicated land in West Scotland.* Our Title Packs are based on a historic Scottish land ownership custom, where landowners have been long referred to as "Lairds", the Scottish term for "Lord", with the female equivalent being "Lady". *This is a purchase for a personal dedication for a souvenir plot of land. You may choose to title yourself with the title of Lord, Laird or Lady.
The bar chart shown with the quote is also terrible: the y axis starts at 66% instead of 0% like all bar charts should. It should have been a line chart.
It's not a scam because you get exactly what is advertised, it's not like he's telling you that you get a particular product and you get something completely different. At best it's a waste if money but that's for each Individual to decide.
It is a scam because they don't deliver what's promised. Not even the tittle is for real. There are videos showing it. I came here to say the same because I think your videos are actually quite good and insightful.
A lot of the speculative froth are from locals, not foreigners. For foreigners, long-term investment in overseas housing is not a good proposition if you are above 50 because of high transaction costs, legal issues, and illiquidity. Ultimately you have to sell it before you kick the bucket. How do you stop locals from speculating and owning multiple homes? Tax.
While I appreciate the attempt to cover this, as a Canadian it misses a lot of the nuance of what's been happening here for 25 yrs or so with regards to foreign investment into our real estate markets.. in many major cities, where new build growth was high, foreign investors picked up large swathes of apartment complexes to leave vacant (see "Ghost Floors") units or entire floors as a way to grow capital.. for 2 decades this continued to push Toronto residents to neighbouring cities that then push people's from those cities out further as well (a sort of "tsunami wave" that pushes affordability outwards).. while this new reg may not really do much, a better option would be to force these vacant spaces to be used or taxed at a very high rate to encourage the use (easier to keep a space vacant and sell 5-10 yrs later vs renters and maintenance of such)
@@sproutingresilience4787 No, construction didn't go far enough. If it apartments are so profitable, then they should be allowed to build until the bubble bursts.
@@DivineInterceptor Ahh, reminds me of my good ole U of T days back in 2012-2016... renting a tiny house in mississauga with 4 students and 4 immigrant workers living in the basement of a polish landlord's second home.
Anyone with the plans to rent land needs to be arrested. No matter who it is. Other wise you are being racist. The capitalists came to America and told the communists Native Americans to OWN land. Not rent. A cognitive dissonance. Our homes and businesses are nouns, not a verb. Need a Q-tip? It's not "tax the rich", its called arrest the theft. Start by arresting my landlord and tear down this and all apartment buildings. And re zone it single family homes, and inforce the person on the dead is the same person living there.
The problem is that people are misled into believing two false assumptions as true: that buying a house is an investment and that a mortgage is good credit. However, in reality, nobody in real estate enters into mortgages for buying properties. Why should the average person do so?
I think both Canada and America need to programs build affordable housing with stipulations that foreign investors can't buy them along with corporations.
Uhm.. You do know that Established titles is a scam right? As much as I love this channel I am absolutely stunned that this one slipped through your due diligence.
@@007kingifrit I think you are a touch too cynical here. Why do you think people are lying about their care for the issue? It's a scam that is being pushed by a channel they love. It seems super understandable/relatable to have genuine feelings about that.
Affordable housing is one of those topics that drive me bananas when I hear politicians talk about it. Either they're really stupid or they think we're all really stupid (or both). Most of the places where they bemoan not enough affordable housing, make it very hard to build new housing. They also push regulations to make it easier for people to qualify for bank loans that they cannot afford. which if you know your supply and demand curve, usually just causes a bidding wars that drive up home prices.
I'd say the politicians have in interest in the issue as fas as they're landlords themselves and are writing the rules so you can bet theyre benefiting from this.. they're not to be trusted and don't have the general public's best interests at heart anymore
Sitting in Sydney, Australia watching this so I 100% agree! Thankfully, the banks are now required to be more stringent with their loaning practices but the damage is done.
I always viewed Established Titles as a bad value product, but I do think their history of deceptive advertising means they should be dropped as a sponsor.
Right but when very dense urban areas are allow the birth rate drops. Which then requires more immigrants and feeding the housing crisis. Data is there for many cities internationally.
You should probably not promote established titles since it's been called out as a scam and it'll damage the channels reputation. Since promoting scams usually isn't a good idea as a finance channel
@@basilperdikakis7627 this is a channel about finance not an actually financial institution so I think it's fair that people thought this was a trustworthy RU-vid channel that wouldnt promote scams
He's taking money from Established Titles and he's acting like there's any question as to whether or not stopping people from hoarding land they don't even use is a good thing. I don't think this guy's credibility is up for debate anymore. Certainly not his morality.
@@nickbob2003 I guess you missed their "affordable housing is a terrible idea because I already own a home" episode. It really exposed what the channel is actually all about.
I live in Vancouver and in 2015 16, we has Chinese investors coming over for 24 hours to purchase 3 4 5 homes at once, Mostly to get their money out of china. Chinese are only allowed to transfer about 50000 dollars in cash a year but if they purchase property, they can move more money out. Their were even purchases they made in the white rock area, where they buy a home and then bulldoze it. And on top of this, they would not rent out these vacant home, and people started squating in them. It was becoming a disaster fast.
taxation on rental income, increased costs of maintenance to keep the property up to various codes, not to mention the cost of paying a local property manager to oversee the property. Tenants also tend to cause a lot of wear and tear if not blatant malicious damage. These are just some of the expenses. I lived in Vancouver for 10 years and for every "renoviction" and slumlord story about landlords there is another story of tenants throwing house wrecking parties and not paying utilities for years at a time (which becomes the landlords responsibility) and not telling anybody. its a wild market. for some people its just EASIER to leave it empty. and since the land is increasing in value so fast they can realize a profit without all the risk of insane humans doing what insane humans do.
The fentanyl/ meth production of chinese professionals for the cartel, that then is laundered in West coast real estate is the largest money laundering scam in US/Candian history. The barbarians are past the gates.
EE: Established Titles ad Me: Whoa, wut?! I literally stopped the video so I could check the release date of it. I thought maybe I’d clicked on from six months ago where the promotion just hadn’t been stripped out. You can imagine my surprise to see a release date of TWO DAYS AGO. Economics Explained, what are you doing?!?!?!
If we talk about housing, can you talk about Finland? They have near none homeless in the country but would love to see an analysis on the downsides of this policy, if there are even
Official number for homeless people is around 5000. But that applies only for people without address. Then there are unknown amount of people with "poste restante address", which most likely means homelessness. The adult people who live with their relatives aren't officially homeless either, but in this culture no person lives volunteerily with their relatives.
@@vicmac3513Finland only has like a million people. The fact they have 5000 homeless is BAD. If a US city like Sanantonio had 5000 homeless with a population of 1.4 mil then that’s a bad rate
Would be interesting to see the ownership of foreign and domestic investors. Because as far as I know institutional investors pricing ordinary folks out of housing is a real danger. In the USA if I am not wrong, they've even turned to buying trailer parks. And there seem to be far too many cases of institutional landlords providing fewer/lower quality services compared to before, while extracting much higher rents from residents.
Canadian here, and one of the stats that needs more attention is that 1 in 5 homeowners own multiple properties. Prices have risen so fast in the last 20 years that lots of Canadians lucky enough to already own a home have been using the equity to buy more properties. We definitely need more homes but the real speculators are older Canadians who have voted for policies that pump up these prices.
Þat's what happens when Joe can't turn þe single-family home he owns into a duplex. Fewer rental properties means fewer landlords and fewer options for renters, fewer landlords means fewer options for renters, fewer options for renters means more people competing for a house, and more people competing for a house means higher costs for þose who are willing to sacrifice convenience to own one.
Owning a trailer park is like being a slumlord on cocaine. You don't even have to own the structure your tenants live in. You can just hold it hostage.
It would be hard to tell as a lot of international investors set up shell companies within the country and then buy homes through them. Technically these houses would not be owned by a foreign investor, but rather a domestic company.
@@-SP. Which is why I think rather than focusing on whether the buyer is foreign or not, the focus should be on how much of the market is controlled by institutional investors as a whole. Maybe markets in richer areas - where people can afford to hire lawyers and take on big companies - there could be a higher ceiling than in poorer areas.
As a Canadian living still at home I know about this issue all too well. Home prices are ridiculous and they were high even before the pandemic. You essentially need two incomes to be able to afford a house or be making a lot of money. It is also hard to go somewhere else in Canada that isn't expensive because the country is so big and there are only a few major economic centres.
Maybe consider moving to a non-“economic center”, whatever that means. I do not have the right to demand I be able to live in the middle of Manhattan. I have to earn that. If you can’t afford to live in Toronto or Vancouver then move. With remote work more of an option, there is nothing stopping you from moving to more affordable urban centres around the country.
@@mensrea1251 that's the problem with Canada, it's very sparsely populated. Most of the country is empty wilderness and certain industries are limited to very specific areas. Not to say you can't go to a small town and find a job to cover rent, just not in your field
@@mensrea1251 Well I am transitioning to a different career which will make it easier to find a job in more remote places. It is still very expensive in the suburbs with average home prices well over $1million CAD and that is over 33km away from downtown Toronto or around 20miles.
@@deanlemckeevans What entitles you to live in a suburb of a major metropolitan centre? $1 million? Who has that kind of money? There are decent places all over the country that cost a quarter of that, maybe less. Your starting assumption that you are entitled to start off at near the top of the value chain pretty much guarantees you will be trapped in an endless cycle of whining, bitterness and lost hope. Don’t play that game - change your assumptions and you will realize you have way, way more options than you think.
@@kingofhearts3185 “Small” towns in Canada have a great lifestyle and there are many, many places worthwhile exploring as options as more and more people move there looking for more affordable housing and a better lifestyle. Also consider changing your field. If it can’t make your ends meet, what’s the point of hanging on to something that will not help you? I have friends who uprooted from their country and gave up their careers to find a more affordable lifestyle and they are now completely happy with a home that was dirt cheap when they got it but now increasing in value because more people are moving nearby.
I don’t mind the sponsorship (since they support the production of great videos) but I am glad there’s people warning about it in the comments. Make informed decisions guys :)
I think there was a video by one of the urbanist channels that discussed how 1% of properties being a short term rental and therefore having a higher price affected some 23% of the prices of the rest of the market. So it may very well be that these properties are having an outsized effect on prices. I believe it was Oh the Urbanity's video about Airbnb
I could see it. When the total supply is outpaced by demand, any supply is just going to get exponentially more expensive as the richest people compete for it. If there’s 100 people an 100 homes (no families) then home prices would be stable. But make it 101 people and now there’s competition that will drive up the price until someone can’t afford it.
Failing to mention zoning regulations, the so-called missing middle, excessive requirements for single-family homes is quite telling on how much research went into this video.
One argument I've heard is that with rising interest rates, a lot of folks are going to default on mortgages and they don't want these houses to be scooped up cheap by foreign rental companies. I'm an idiot so no idea how accurate this is lol All I know is my rent is going up about $800 when I move
There are real problems that nobody wants to talk about. For example, mortgages are the worst kind of loan you can get. It's like getting a loan from a pawn shop. I'm not kidding. Another issue with the Canadian banking system is its endogamous nature. The concept of "renegotiating interest rates" is almost forbidden in other countries. You have to agree to fixed rates and consistent payment fees for the duration of your loan.
@@DJVARAO back in the day in Canada my homestead grandparents had to put up the ENTIRE FARM to buy their first tractor. Hard to believe we've gone back to pawn shops with the "Big Five". I basically after decades of having my accounts with TD and a CLEAR credit rating had to THREATEN the bank to get my credit card. My USA credit rating?? I have one. My Delta Am. Ex. card has a ceiling of 55 grand US with NO credit check. Canada?? Scots bankers, Brit lawyers, and Irish cops: the answer they LOVE to speal is "NO".
Couple of points: municipalities have started to do a good job at taxing vacant homes and I think that's where this issue will be dealt with best. Canada has a negative home supply of about 1 million units. Well-meaning people put restriction on how municipalities can expand, often in the name of environmental sustainability but at huge cost of homes becoming unaffordable for large portions of society.
I love your videos (although the sponsor is questionable) but I cannot understand why home owners would like the prices to rise. As long as people have one property the argument is applicable only to the fringe case when somebody sells bigger house to buy smaller and consume the price difference. If all houses in the economy will get stupid cheap (way below the outstanding mortgage) it doesn't change my situation to worse - I can sell my house for pennies, buy much bigger for a similar price and in the end I have nearly the same mortgage but my living conditions are better.
Because when your asset is appreciating in price it does 2 things: 1. It psychologically makes you feel richer, so you're more willing to go out and spend money. 2. you have more equity in your house, which allows you to take out a HELOC.
Because it's a fallacy. Saying that houses getting more expensive benefits home owners because their houses (most have only one) will be more expensive is like saying inflation benefits workers because wages will increase.
How about if someone is selling to go into a care home? Obviously you can see how it's better than falling house prices and the odds of your house price staying entirely static for any time isn't high.
Why do house prices have to drop dramatically straight away? If they only drop them slowly, it would stop people going into negative equity. Or just shift a loss to banks, i you have negative equity on your home you can just give the house back to the bank and don't pay them anything. Banks and those that have multiple houses can suffer consequences of negative equity after decades of profiting from working class.
It is too little too late, because the problem is housing is blocked at every road by government red tape so we havebt been able to keep up with demand at all. We need a LOT of housing ti be built and its just nit happening fast enough.
They already said that you can't call yourself a Lord, and it was meant as a joke. The only mention of you as a Lord will be that fake piece of paper that someone printed at home.
I'm not gonna lie I just unsubscribed and I am now questioning how much economics explained really understands about the world since hes still taking a established title sponsorship
As a home owner in Vancouver, Canada this video is surprisingly accurate. Vancouver is at the extreme end in Canada when it comes to property costs (especially related to incomes), foreign ownership, tourism, etc. The "speculation and vacancy tax" was put in place in 2018 and applies to any property that isn't your primary residence and isn't being rented out. It's 2% of the property value (per year) for foreign owners and 0.5% for residents/citizens. This is directly targeting empty homes in order to increase supply. IMO as long as a foreign buyer rents out their property then it shouldn't be an issue. The video hints at the real issue, which is on the supply side. Incredibly restricted zoning (single family homes only for the vast majority of urban land) and onerous building regulations make it difficult and expensive to build new homes. Add in that Vancouver is geographically restricted (by mountains, ocean, US border), a tourist destination, and everyone seems to want to live here and unaffordability is going to happen.
100% agreed. I'm in Toronto, and despite making good money, I don't see home ownership as a likely part of my future. While the target of the legislation is foreign investment, I think you've done a better job than the video here. There's a lot of people who own multiple properties, and focus on revenue generation and land banking money. Our banks are totally complicit - I've known people who's advice from their banker immediately after closing one property was to refinance with two mortgages and renting the second one out. A commodities market approach to our housing market can't deliver meaningful solutions to the housing needs. And beyond the finances, the overwhelming preference for single-family homes and car-dependent suburbs constrains our imaginations and means our only real effort to solve "supply" is to just keep doing the same thing we've done for 60 years. Too bad we know that's neither economically nor ecologically sustainable.
Fixing supply will fix a lot of the problems. There are simply not enough units to go around for sustained growth of the major urban centres. The government also wants to absorb another 500k immigrants per year, not sure how everyone is going to fit and what kind of support system is available.
It is an issue, it affects the size of condos in general, lowering the standard of living in Canada to that of ludicrously overpopulated asian cities. It's supply and demand, foreigners should not come before citizens. It's even more ironic that most of them come from Singapore, Korea, china, and Japan- ALL countries that would never allow foreigners to destroy the housing market for their own citizens.
"Of course, we have the means to house the unhoused and end their suffering... But could someone think about the poor homeowners and their speculative earnings???"
Great video! I reckon it's similar to what's happening in New Zealand. NZ passed the same law in 2017 and is not looking into removing it. Could you do a NZ analysis too? 🙏
Should have done more research into the causes limiting supply. Here in Victoria, BC, the big factors I've noticed are: NIMBYs and excessive building regulations. A lot of new construction projects can't get off the ground because of all the red tape and a very leftist, environmentalist city council that hates cars (despite the urban design and infrastructure makes them necessary for many). Trying to meet all the provincial regulations and municipal bylaws and placating local community nitpicking is such a collective high bar that many developers give up after trying for SEVERAL YEARS to get a project off the ground. Local community associations have too much power to veto projects that has a whiff of anything they don't like, and they often don't like it anyway since they (and the politicians) are mostly homeowners themselves who will do anything to keep their own houses from losing value. That's another problem: conflict of interest. Are we supposed to believe that our MPs and MLAs are really working for the best interest of renters when they themselves are almost always homeowners who stand to lose a fair chunk of their own net worth if residential real estate values ever actually drop to a reasonable level? Cronyism will be the death of our economy.
I have heard this 1% foreign investor argument before. that is such a small percentage doesn't make a difference. It overlooks the high bid effect where it just takes one house in a street to sell at a higher value and the entire area or street gets revalued. foreign investors from bigger richer economies seeing cheap houses relative to where they are are the ones typically kicking off this domino effect.
I’ve heard for so long that prices in Vancouver keep going up cause it’s landlocked. Which is BS cause you can always increase density. They are doing that now - converting single detached to multi-family units - but quite slowly. There needs to be more of it. Also wouldn’t be against leased apartments that make housing cheaper but also less of an investment so house prices don’t become unaffordable for the next owner
The leased apartments rent tend to follow house prize. The landlord want the more profit that possible but if it is more affordable to do mortgage payments they will have trouble to rent their apartment.
Everyone wants housing to be affordable. But all the homeowners don't want their house value dropping. You can't get affordable housing without making the existing housing affordable as well. So the issue won't be fixed for the foreseeable future.
As someone that is in the middle of this housing Crisis... I have been forced out of Some markets here in the US because of there price. I just finished school, and an internship, but may have to move back home before I can start a job due to how much it costs to live while I wait for a response from Hiring managers. Effectively taking me out of the job market that is desperate for workers. Many places around me are still giving sign on bonuses, and paying Ludacris amounts of money to retain staff, but are still short staffed. I hope I here back from one of the 7 companies in my field by March 1st, or I will be moving back home to go back to work as a ranch hand; making over $20,000 and an entire year bettering myself, and trying to make myself more marketable a complete and udder waste.
At least you can reasonably afford to buy a house instead of renting. In Germany the downpayment for a house is 20%+. At the moment I'm sharing an appartment with two other people, but I wanted to own the next appartment I live in. But with this downpayment there's no way I can afford that with prices starting at around 200k.
@@jsplit9716 The culture is also different in the US, if you don't own a house, Which I don't; it people look down on you, and you get less protections/services from the government. You are almost a second class citizen because you are not a land owner. It can also be harder to find a job.
as the video pointed out, rising home prices arent necessarily bad for current homeowners as most use their home as part of their investment strategy for eetirement
The only people who don't want house prices to fall are rich people who own multiple real estate. A family owning just one house, should not be worried about falling real estate prices, because they don't want to sell their homes they live in anyway.
Another problem with catering to tourists over residents is that only residents can vote to change the system. If only the entrenched powers remain, they'll overwhelmingly vote to keep the system as it is.
How is this supposed to actually ban foreign buyers? Most foreign buyers have their family in Canada. They can buy under their spouse or their kids name. That’s why so many properties in Vancouver and Toronto are owned by 18 year olds
And that’s why it’s a political fix nothing more. The government has to be seen to be doing SOMETHING, so they slap on a provocative title to a garbage piece of legislation they can point to and tell voters “See! Look at what we’ve done for you!”
The elephant in the room and also the lowest hanging fruit is the fact that the government already pushes housing prices artifficially up. Reversing that would be bringing the housing prices back to what would be expected in a regular working housing market
The idea that the surge in prices is only felt in a few metro's across the country is very misleading. It's pretty much happening everywhere, even in remote areas of the country. Much bigger issue than the video lets on.
Something to consider for future videos: Recommendations on how to get the wealthier sections of society who already own homes to support redeveloping in cities to make them more pleasant places to live and building more housing.
7.10, the juxtaposition between those that wanted affordable housing AND their properties not depreciating was excellently pointed out! This is especially true in California where more democrat leaning voters want affordable housing to reduce the rampant homelessness, but also want zoning laws that prevent it to continue property appreciation.
Much is made of this in the comments but why would any policymaker put much stock in that rather obvious reaction. People generally don't want to pay taxes or want to pay minimal taxes and at the same time they want tons of services - high speed rail etc. Do policymakers then throw their hands up and say we can't do anything meaningful about tax policy? Of course not.
This whole legislation is a cop out. There are exemptions if: you are a student, a part time resident, or have intentions to rent the property out. This literally ONLY affects people who intend on holding vacant property as a store of wealth.
Everyone wants afordable housing, just not THEIR houses to become cheaper. Everyone wants to win at investing in realestate and wonder WHY is housing unafordable.
Everyone I know in the Vancouver area who don't own homes have to live with 6 people on average just to make the house somewhat affordable. Still looking at around $1000 on average for rent. It's honestly absurd.
What’s absurd is so many people who clearly CLEARLY cannot afford to live there continue to take extreme measures to try and stay while whining about how difficult it is. What people used to do when a place became too expensive is to MOVE to a place that is more affordable. In time those new places will start developing too as more people move there and those who moved there will then be the established homeowners. And of course their own offspring will then be whining and complaining. Nothing is stopping you from moving to a more affordable place. It’s what million did people do. Stop whining and start finding a solution.
Wondering if the information in this video is out of date. I imagine EE would be responsible enough not to accept Established Titles as a sponsor, so I can only imagine they produced this video a long time ago and just now are releasing it. I normally think very highly of this channel
The people who didn't raise their hands about their houses loosing value were just not given a good enough description of the scenario. If it is pitched as, all homes get cheaper including the one you own. It isn't an issue for your ability to stay in a home, in fact it means you would be able to upgrade to a better house!
@@thechosenone1533 That depends on other factors, though. Your mortgage is made up of principle, interest, property tax, home insurance, and (in some cases) mortgage insurance. If your home value goes down, your property taxes also go down, and the cost to insure your home also goes down. At the very least, a reduction in monthly payments would help homeowners everywhere. I'm not saying it would be enough to offset everything, but I do think it bears looking into. That obviously doesn't help if you paid 250k for a house that's valued now at say 200k but there could perhaps be ways to assist homeowners in that position through government grants or tax credits. I'm no economist or accountant or anything, but I think people who are particularly smart with money could come up with a solution that helps. Ideally, governments who would suffer the lost tax income by dropping property values could make up and perhaps even exceed the losses with more people being able to afford homes. Idk, I'm not a fan of being upside down on my home, but I still want affordable housing and I think there definitely are options that are worth exploring ❤
@@AkizukiSakura16 It reduces costs but it also reduces benefits. If your mortgage is higher than your house price and you lose your job and are unable to make payments, you will lose your house and still owe money to the bank. Whereas if your house increases in value, you can sell it,pay off your mortgage and move into a smaller place. Also for many people homes are part of their retirement savings. Once they retire,they sell it and move to a cheaper place. If home prices fall,their retirement just got more difficult.
@@thechosenone1533 Yes, totally understand! That's why I think taking any actions to reduce home values would have to include provisions for people who have already purchased homes and are at risk of being upside down on their loans, like tax breaks or grants, etc. You can't just take a huge chunk out of property values and then say "do your best" to the people who are already in a mortgage. The nice thing about lowering prices, hopefully, would be that downsizing later in retirement would ideally cost way less, so that wouldn't be as much of a hit. Like I said though, def not an economist or anything. I just don't think kicking the can down the road and doing nothing at all is helpful 😔. Someone commented about a land value tax and that could be worth looking into, too!
The issue is that there are so many loopholes and exemptions that the ban is virtually worthless. When foreign nationals on working visas, international students (student visas into Canada is extremely easy to get) and vacation homes (pretty much any home can be declared a vacation home) are allowed, what are you really banning?
Wait foreign nationals on working visas getting a home isn't driving prices. Its the Super Rich foreign businesses buying properties and renting them out.
These are all people working in, living and contributing to your economy. Well holiday homes not so much. Restrict those too. Just because there are loopholes to something, doesn't mean all attempts to do it are bad. First bring the change, then incrementally close the loop holes. Don't let perfection get in the way of a good idea. Its a saying for a reason.
No, there are no real loopholes. You have to have a permanent residency or be married to a Canadian. All other exemptions are minuscule, like diplomats etc. Trust me, I just got denied my mortgage app and got a lawyer to fight it - did not work. Work permit holders are not really exempt, you have to work in the country for 3 years, not just get a WP.
That video totally missed the point. What they are trying to block with this rule is Chinese habit of buying 2-3 houses that they then leave completely empty as a way to get around their own countries restrictions on banking. This is becoming a much larger issues in bigger cities (mostly Vancouver, but more and more Toronto and Ottawa as well) than the numbers in this video make believe. What the government is trying to do is increase supply by limiting/eliminating those empty houses by forcing investor to actually use them. Very disappointed by Economics Explained, I was used to better quality analysis than that.
What are you racist? The ban isn't "foreigners can't buy homes" it's foreign investors who don't live or work in the area. Someone with a work visa or international students would be living and working in the area which is what this ban is supposed to help.
Problem is they make laws WITH LOOPHOLES!!!!! Single homes BUT not commerical, apartments, and EVERYTHING ELSE?!?!?!? What stupid law is that? Like the new EV BIKE LAWS: Must wear a helmet "under 18". What? So 18 and up can DIE?!?!?!? No Compromises in laws. Laws only need to be 1 page documents, not 200 page exceptions
Even if banning foreign real estate investment doesn’t work, at least it removes the argument. With that excuse out of the way, people are forced to discuss other reasons for property being unaffordable.
I think the problem lies in the fact that housing is viewed as an investment instead of a basic human right like water and utility water is pretty cheap but water could easily be viewed as an investment and then we end up in a hypothetical version of mad max where water is priceless...... What I'd like to see is having an entry level housing available to anyone with fees that scale with income and another form of housing where the market decides and is taxed in a way that subsidized the difference in entry level housing maintenance and keeping it up to date etc, so you can feel good about having a nice big excess Mac manor because it helps the less fortunate also have housing.
Title doesn’t even come with ANY land not even the square foot they claim u can’t own it they do. They also own another scam company in kamikoto knives. No hate on taking the money for advertising. U know considering I get it free with Adblock so no hate u need it. But should definately need some sort of detailed disclaimer on it being a scam charging tons of money for a piece of paper with ink and outrageous prices on some CHEAP steel for their “HIGH” end knives
I’m not a fan of the Trudeau ethos but I’m watching to see what happens here. As a single 41 year old bloke for whom the GFC kept me spinning my wheels until about 2019, I’ve seen property double in price here in Ireland in less than a decade. We went from oversupply to a vicious crisis in not much more than that same decade and watched my ambitions of establishing literally ANY sort of long term stability simply disappear for me. This is my last chance saloon. If I can’t make it work in time to hunker down before the impending economic storm, I will be adrift once more, as I was from 2009 to 2019.
It was never a genuine state of oversupply of housing in Ireland in the aftermath of the GFC. The reduction of housing prices wasn't caused by structural factors, it was caused by cyclical factors, which are more short term temporary. phenomena. It was caused by an economic downturn dampening demand, which is temporary in the long scheme of things, while the structural problems in the housing market remained in place. Without said structural factors being changed, it was an inevitability that housing prices would return to their upwards trend once the Irish economy recovered. It was completely unrealistic to view the property price reduction during the GFC as a long-term trend.
@@jamesclarke2789 yes, prices were inevitably going to rise because they were simply too low to incentivise building but remember, there was a massive influx of labour, aside from natural population growth, which immediately left a void once the construction industry was decimated leading to ‘ghost estates’ and such. The two greatest opportunities lost was that govt could have used NAMA to complete more of these developments to bolster the market and keep professionals at work in this country, rather than ushering them (us) to the airports. The other being the same professionals could have been put to work building the social housing that was badly needed even in the boom. Somehow, the entire Western world seemed to all stop building adequate social housing in recent decades, which is one of the primary reasons the rental market is overwhelmed with people with people who ought to be housed. I can’t recall the name of the Trinity professor who stated the latter point but it’s easily observed that the construction industry was willingly decimated without remorse at time and the dismal treatment of this vital function of every economy is now coming home to roost for all of us. In other words, if govt had reversed their long established policy of [following our western neighbours in] preventing those who need social housing from getting it, they could have prevented the collapse and devastation of an industry, kept people in work and gradually built a functioning housing sector. All you have to do is read the news to see the short term thinking at the time hasn’t finished punishing us. Now, Housing For All is an open admission off past failure as we enter a new global downturn which will see enormous numbers of people who couldn’t afford a mortgage, let alone rent, let alone food and bills who will be facing the government for answers. Our govt will have to finally pay the piper
"American workers are given the tools they need to go international." 12:30 At that moment, people cross a street in New York City with a Toronto-Dominion Bank branch in the background. This was sublime. It both supports the argument that the USA is very open to foreign investment, but it also shows that some Canadian businesses are there making money.
This is a great video - amazing how hard cities/provinces in Canada make it to build new housing, it's classic NIMBY behaviour. One thing to note though, is that investors are responsible for a significant portion of home ownership/purchases in Canada (albeit, they are mostly domestic) - a recent study found that in early 2020 40% of Ontario condos were investment properties (with that figure as high as 80% in some cities).
We're in the middle of a housing crisis and a few more here in the Netherlands. It's absolutely ridiculous here and I probably won't see a future here for many, my kids and grandkids included except if you want them to live with you until their 40s. Btw, Established titles? Really dude...?
You should see the effect on a previously "rural community" that is adjacent to an increasingly popular U.S. National Park... AirBnB investors have decimated affordable housing in the area where I live..... and this is a place where the population had trouble even affording the previously low price levels.......
They tried doing something similar to this in Texas for land and people were extremely upset. Senate Bill 147, filed by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, aims to prevent citizens, companies and government entities from China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from purchasing land
This is purely anecdotal, based on my experience living in Vancouver on a working holiday visa a few years ago. During the investment ban section, you mentioned an exemption for students. This is the primary workaround for people from other countries (seemingly China, predominantly) who wish to purchase houses as a way of storing their wealth. They will send their children to Simon Fraser or UBC, using their student visa status to funnel money through them to buy houses. The investment ban is essentially sentimental while that major loophole is open.