logoffsean.bsky.social
social ecologist and tenant union organizer in BC
🌍🌏🌎 there's still time 🐋🐝🕊️
(he/him)
91 posts
203 followers
87 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Sure, of course supply is part of the equation, but pretending that's it, that you can just increase supply and prices go down, it's ludicrous
As I tried to show Hank, the bigger factor is an increasing proportion of investors in the market using housing for profit instead of, you know, to live in
comment in response to
post
As I said, it can vary widely based on jobs available, amenities, culture, social supports, etc.
That's to say nothing of rent deregulation. Landlords flock to jurisdictions lacking rent and vacancy controls where they know that can maximize their exploitation for profit
comment in response to
post
I've seen enough of your videos to know you know that even those people believe we do need more housing, they just want it not in "their backyard"
My point stands that the fundamental driver of housing costs is commodification, not simply supply/demand, a point nobody in the thread has disproven
comment in response to
post
On a fundamental level, no. They may expect different rates of profit in different markets, but their core incentive of maximizing profit by exploiting this basic human need remains unchanged
comment in response to
post
It's not an argument against building housing. It's an argument against the vapid supply-side misconception that more housing will bring down prices
That's simply not the case when investors are hoarding a huge chunk of new builds AND existing housing at an accelerating pace
comment in response to
post
No one "needs" to rent out their home, unless the financialization of a human right has made owning their house unaffordable, proving my point
I don't know a single person who doesn't agree that everyone gets one home before anyone gets two. So the public decides, instead of letting the rich decide
comment in response to
post
Obviously both can vary widely based on jobs available, amenities, culture, social supports, etc.
There's also a well-studied direct relationship between rent increases and homelessness, so the more investors treat housing as a profit venture, the higher the homeless rate is
comment in response to
post
Is this a joke? The only reason people think it's worth it to buy a house is because it's scarce?
Not...you know...having a roof over your head??
comment in response to
post
Listen, you can live in your make-believe world, but you don't need to be a piece of shit to me because you disagree
You literally know nothing about me and yet you're wetting your pants and saying I don't know anything. Grow up
comment in response to
post
I'm not saying the public consultation process isn't a problem, see the great About Here video on this
But NIMBYs blocking lone affordable developments doesn't change the fundamental reason housing is unaffordable: the commodification and financialization of housing as a whole
comment in response to
post
How is it lying? The headline says "up to 90%" and it clearly identifies a NL town where that's true
Other growing cities (outside the capital cities) like KCW have 60% of new builds being hoarded by investors, so it's not like the "up to" is misleading given KCW is fairly large by CA standards
comment in response to
post
Zero. Why does anyone need to own a home they aren't living in when other people need that home?
comment in response to
post
Isn't the goal that 100% of people either own their home or (perhaps for flexibility) prefer to live in public housing either for free or extremely low rents simply because it's a human right?
How we get there? Stop buying landlord propaganda and get active in your community, start a tenant union
comment in response to
post
Hank, stop strawmanning
Literally nobody thinks we don't need to build more homes. Stop ignoring that commodification of housing the fundamental problem
You must understand that landlords artificially inflate demand because they're buying more than they need purely to drive up profits
comment in response to
post
Of course home owners play a part but the core reason they own the home is to live in it. Obviously 😂
Landlords hoard housing purely for profit. They lobby for deregulation to drive up rents, making house hoarding more attractive as an investment, accellerating the problem of housing as commodity
comment in response to
post
Right, which goes to show that basic supply/demand arguments are oversimplified because most of the demand is in other places, yet landlords still want to hoard all the housing. So even in places where houses are cheaper people can't buy them as a result, artificially oversaturating demand
comment in response to
post
No, value goes up because they collude to deregulate markets, which they use to increase rents, which makes hoarding housing more attractive as an investment
Not factoring in that investors buy more housing than they need destroys your oversimplified supply/demand because demand is overrepresented
comment in response to
post
That's objectively untrue 😂
More landlords means more lobbying power to deregulate markets, for example, getting rent and vacancy controls removed. I know several people in my area who have had rents increased $1000 as a result
If they compete at all, it is to drive up rental costs
comment in response to
post
It's such a psychedelic text, rich with an optimistic view toward creating the future left that feels very lost in today's discourse
comment in response to
post
Even the Bank of Canada, no opponent to capitalism, has said that investors doubling the share of housing they own is in fact driving up pricing and destabilizing the housing market
betterdwelling.com/canadian-rea...
comment in response to
post
Investors own 1/4 of all homes and 1/3 of new homes in Canada, on average, they have major sway over pricing and supply
This skews oversimplified calculations of supply/demand, because now instead of homes built to house people, the explicit purpose of millions of homes is solely to drive up prices
comment in response to
post
Hank, you're smarter than this circular reasoning
Investors bought 92% of new supply in small towns like Bay Roberts, what will that do to pricing when their sole purpose is to maximize profit?
What about 50% in Toronto, or 60% in mid-size GTA cities like KCW people are being pushed/priced out to?
comment in response to
post
I really enjoy the direction MGMT have taken on their latest two albums, and it's also nice having new music that evokes the same vibe as their first two albums
comment in response to
post
I really hope they are but I won't be holding my breath
comment in response to
post
Her unrelenting support for Israel's genocide would've been a huge problem to earn support among the center-left anyway
comment in response to
post
Great, so they have some bread and butter Liberal style policy, why isn't he saying that like Poilievre who never shuts up about his policy points?
I mean they're weak policies, so maybe that's why, but it'd still be better to broadcast this than meaningless "were fighting for you" message
comment in response to
post
Frankly I think the Freeland/the Liberal caucus were the main force that took down Trudeau. All the accusations that Singh is responsible for Poilievre's inevitable win I think far overstate his power in all this lol
That said, I agree that he could get more out of the Libs, especially a new leader
comment in response to
post
Exactly! It's grandstanding every time but never a plan
There are even two provinces with NDP governments, but never any coordination between them and the fed NDP to formulate a national multi-gov plan. It's pathetic
comment in response to
post
How? How will you take on CEOs? How will you prevent price gouging and collusion?
Are you following Sheinbaum's lead and creating publicly owned grocery stores like Mexico?
Please just one time I'm asking you to say how instead of just lobbing insults and vague declarations to "stand with us"
comment in response to
post
I've heard from many in rural BC (across the political spectrum) that it's time for a more protectionist policy rooted in manufacturing and value-added production that meets our needs first
There's a great anger about raw materials being traded away just to be sold back to us at huge mark-ups
comment in response to
post
DeviantArt
comment in response to
post
Based on these replies it's clear Liberal supporters really don't understand how our system of government works
Trudeau is out, we're entering election season, that much is clear. What good comes from Singh continuing to be his crutch?
Counterpoint: what good is this statement without an NDP plan?
comment in response to
post
This frankly has less teeth than Freeland's barbed resignation just two weeks ago
Based on the language used by active Liberal MPs when talking about Trudeau I think they'd agree with much of this statement
Overreacting as usual Dale?
comment in response to
post
Wild to admit you've completely tuned out a genocide
There was a massive protest during the NYE event in Times Square that was visible/audible in broadcasts, but I guess you were brunching