You’re not wrong, but also you aren’t right. The basics that you need should be taught to you by your parents and at school before you move out. AI isn’t interfering with either of those at this point.

You couldn’t manage your life in the event of every possible problem either, the question then becomes which things should you know how to do yourself, and which things can be delegated.

I don’t know how to repair a car beyond changing a tire or the oil, but even that isn’t really necessary anymore since many cars don’t even come with a spare at this point and knowing how to change the oil is now irrelevant to me, since I’m using an EV.

Knowing how to ferment for preservation may come in handy for saving a couple of dollars, but it’s hardly a life saving skill anymore. Even in the event of a massive catastrophe, it’s unlikely that fermentation would come in handy before aid arrived or you were able to leave the area.

It’s pretty much impossible for it to not include at least a good part of Canada. Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal are all within the margin of error distance/routes to the US for incoming ballistic missiles.

This ain’t some iron dome 10km range situation.

You fail to realize that in order to get AI to do anything, you have to understand what to ask it in the first place. AI is not likely to do things you can’t accomplish at all, you would have no way to validate the results and therefore it would end up causing problems (like we’re seeing with people submitting papers written by AI without reviewing them) or making some code that doesn’t even compile/run.

It’s just a tool for speeding up that work that you already know, like learning the basics of multiplication, then using a calculator for the rest of your life. You still need to understand what multiplication and division are in order to work a calculator properly.

AI all the things? Bad

AI for specific use cases? Good

I use AI probably a dozen times a week for work tasks, saving myself about 2-4 hours of work time on tasks that I know it can do easily in seconds. Simple e-mail draft? Done. Write a complex formula for excel? Easy. Generate a summary of some longer text? Yup.

It’s easy to argue that we may become dependant upon it, but that’s already true for lots of things. Would you have any idea on how to preserve food if you didn’t have a fridge? Would you have any idea on even how to get food if you didn’t have a grocery store nearby? How would you organize a party with your friends without a phone? If a computer wasn’t tracking your bank balance, how would you keep track of your money? Can you multiply 423 by 365 without using a calculator?

At the end of the day, rent prices are driven by house prices. If rents become too high compared to owning, people just buy.

The current barrier is the upfront cost, but…

The property taxes I propose will drop the current value of homes through the floor. Some highly inefficient homes may actually have a zero or negative value, because they would cost too much in tax each month for anyone to want to buy. They would be scooped up by developers who can make them affordable by building enough units on that property in order to bring the tax per unit down to something people would pay.

Given that the house prices would drop so significantly, so would rent prices across the board.

There isn’t actually a lack of land anywhere in Canada, even our most populated city cores haven’t hit the densities that would prevent further growth.

There also isn’t actually a lack of housing, as I said elsewhere there are more bedrooms in Canada than there are people. We just need policies which incentive people to use them efficiently.

And the government controlling all rentals is an option, but do you really think they’re going to keep everything 100% repaired and up to date for everyone? This is going to be a pain point under both options, and I’d rather be able to take private landlord to court to get something fixed than try to take the government itself to court.

People should be allowed to purchase the rights to control land and buildings, it allows them to make more serious changes (construction, renos, landscaping) that they care about. It also allows for long term stability in terms of not getting evicted.

In my system for renters, the duties of a landlord are still taken care of by landlords, since it would still be perfectly legal to own a property and rent it out. It’s the same as now, except instead of the landlord making a profit off the month rent AND the property inflating in value over time, they can only make a reasonable profit off the monthly rent and even then only if they’re using the land efficiently. It’s not the concept of renting that’s broken the market, it’s the fact that instead of just being a value added service (taking care of the repairs, utilities, etc.) the current market has made it a long term investment. Force it back to just a value added service (like renting cars) and it will be fine.

And I’ve never heard of anybody getting evicted for non-payment of property taxes.

Governments force the sales of properties all the time over unpaid taxes.

Renting is inherently exploitative:

No it isn’t, that’s only the case when the market fails like a situation with a finite amount of land in a specific area. There’s nothing inherently exploitative about renting cars to people, or renting a garden tool you only use once a year, or renting a paddle board for a trip to the lake, or renting a hotel room while travelling.

Once you push the land efficiency aspect via taxes, the land limitation drops off significantly and we can go back to having apartment/home rentals just be something landlords do to earn a little bit of money for providing a service, rather than it doubling their investment every 5 years.

My suggestion to add significant property taxes essentially does the same thing, since you’re “renting” from the government when you pay those. Then it applies properly to everyone, and it’s not some half cooked system that people can exploit.

I looked up the statscan data for home ownership and cross referenced it against other statscan data on rental buildings and locations of secondary homes(cottages and lake homes)

The trick to make this work is to tax the land value, rather than the property as a whole.

Rural area, land not worth a lot, fairly low tax. My rural property that I live in is about 20% land value, and 80% house value. Downtown core, land worth a lot, but then it gets divided by all the apartments in that building bringing it to a very low number. So you have a 40 million dollar plot of land, but there’s 100 condos on it, which makes the land value about the same as above in terms of a percentage vs building value.

It’s underutilized land that gets absolutely slammed. That empty nest couple who kept the 5 bedroom family home that’s now inside the city boundaries and refuse to sell to let it be developed into condos. The 2-3 floor condo that was built 60 years ago right downtown, but really needs to be 10-15 floors at this point. Or the 1 story business in the core, sitting on a primary bus route or next to a bus exchange, that needs to be a condo building with commercial space on the bottom.

and yet if you go look at the charts for say Vancouver and Toronto over the same period of time you can clearly see there’s little to no effect from BC’s policy changes.

And it’s still a couple million dollars to buy a detached home in Vancouver, and the cheapest 2 bedroom condo is a half million (and it’s literally on East Hastings) with most normal 2 bedrooms being listed at $600-700k

These policies haven’t made anything affordable, and they aren’t going to make things affordable.

Or it just happened to coincide with a massive jump in interest rates which also affected prices elsewhere that didn’t implement these policies.

I agree with you on the second part, but even allowing a single home still keeps housing as an investment/profit generator.

You have to actually do something to force every owner to lose(or at least never make) money. Hence my original suggestion to heavily tax homes and return that to citizens equally.

There are stabilizing benefits in some cases. Traditions can be valuable, even just for show.

It really wouldn’t.

A) It prevents renting at all except for basement suites. So no more rental buildings, which make up the majority of rentals available. Renting is an important housing option, as not everyone wants to own, nor should they have to. Move to a city to go to university, and you have to buy a house just to live in for 2-4 years before you have to sell it to move elsewhere for a job? Have a job that requires you go somewhere else for a few months while you <build a bridge> <implement a new computer system> <train some people>, too bad hotel for 6 months instead of being able to rent an apartment.

B) If you do the math and even take out dedicated rental buildings, there really aren’t that many homes that are owned as a second place. It’s about 15% of the total market, and a large chunk of that are cottages and lake houses away from the cities where people actually want to live.

The big place/small place issue is actually more of a problem than the the double ownership you’re talking about. There are more total bedrooms in Canada than there are people, and once you account for couples usually sharing a bedroom, there’s actually a ton of extra bedrooms across the country. The problem is that they’re not distributed properly across the population, 4+ bedroom family homes that were bought to raise children are being kept for decades by empty-nest couples who don’t want to downsize.

And it should be obvious that despite new regulations being put in for Foreign buyers, Vacant units, and Airbnb, the prices haven’t dropped to even pre-pandemic levels, let alone any useful amount, and they’re expected to keep climbing this year.

These are all small red herrings that are easy PR wins for the government, but don’t actually do anything useful to the prices.

I didn’t vote liberal.

I voted NDP, but even they didn’t have a plan to actually drop housing prices.

This is a red herring.

I ran the calculations a while back, that may free up 2-4% of all housing, that is not enough to fix the problem of expensive housing. That’s only 1-2 years of new building stock.

It won’t hurt to do it, but it’s simply not the main reason real estate is expensive.

There are studies on that, but they’re not super relevant because the appropriate amount of space is determined by how many people want to live somewhere, not based on the specific size.

People are willing to live in smaller places the closer they are to amenities. It’s a gradient, not a single value even for each location.