The most intensive cuts to social spending in Canadian history happened in the 1990s, including the complete annihilation of Canada’s post-war funding commitments to affordable housing. This came about as Canada mimicked the policies of the United Kingdom, introduced under Margaret Thatcher, and…
I can’t help but wonder if these policy changes were completely by design to constrain supply and increase the value of existing housing as a favour to the politician’s buddies and corporate overlords.
Social and affordable housing is competition to private market housing. Without it, a power vacuum was left in its place and the market went nuts and speculation took over. REITs bought up tons of housing, much of it previously affordable housing, and since these REITs are publicly listed companies, they need to continue making increased returns so they continue buying everything up and driving up prices, thereby, putting pressure on the rental markets. Years of low interest rates made it very lucrative for investors and REITs to just buy everything making housing affordability worse for everyone.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that Canada and probably the rest of the Western world is heading into very dangerous waters with the ridiculous rise in costs for the essentials of life. What is going to happen to our society when vast swaths of people are having trouble just surviving? It feels like this unchecked greed and short sighted profits over everything else will lead us down a very dark path.
I don’t think it is. I think this is a case of Hanlon’s razor. I think most of society really bought this bullshit that the free market is going to sort everything out. Recall that was/is the official mainstream economics dogma. Probably some had ulterior motives but vast swaths of people were onboard this train, flogging the engineer to go faster into the bright free market future. And it even seemed to work okay for a bit while we were coasting on the fumes of the social investments of prior. I mean, I was able to rent a 1-bed and afford basic living on a minimum wage in 2005 in the GTA.
E: I mean, speaking of dogma, the idea that taxes do not fund government expenditures is just starting to permeate it. Our current government is still talking in terms of whether we could afford this or that (e.g. building mass non-market housing) on the basis of revenue and debt. At least the libs have dropped the balancing of budgets part of the dogma. I’m not sure the wider public is onboard yet either.