Hacker News Reader

Comment by mensetmanusman | Hacker News Reader

They are related, millions of more unplanned civilians dramatically increases rent and reduces supply. At least that has been the case in Canada.

View on HN

> millions of more unplanned civilians dramatically increases rent and reduces supply. At least that has been the case in Canada.

Why are the civilians unplanned? Is Canada planning for zero population growth, or otherwise, what went wrong with their planning?

This covers it:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7080376

Weird—they set immigration levels years in advance, and never plan for "where are those people going to live?"

> Immigration accounts for nearly all population growth in Canada

Imagine if people started having kids again! Where would anyone live?!

It's honestly somewhat terrifying to see skyscrapers flying up in my neighborhood. You'd think I'd be delighted, increased supply should decrease prices, right? Only, my kid is having a terrible time in school in large part because the student:teacher, and student:classroom ratios have been flying up as well. For all the dozens of luxury condo towers we're building, we are not building out commensurate services for the kids who will inevitably occupy those towers.

Many years ago, my dad worked down in Dallas. And there were so many people moving there, that schools had classrooms in trailers while they built new, larger schools. And then when those larger schools were completed, so many people had kept moving that they still had classrooms in trailers. I don’t fully understand why planning for growth is so hard. I believe that it is, I just don’t get it.

How do immigrants reduce supply? They're destroying homes when they get here?

edit: why am I being downvoted for pointing out a flaw in the premise I'm responding to?

More likely building them. It's zoning policy that makes sure those homes are overpriced, oversized, and out of reach of most people looking to transition into home ownership.

Higher demand leads to higher prices and doesn't lead to anything become net-net cheaper. That's a supply-side thing entirely and usually requires a massive regulatory or technological change.

Super high gasoline production today doesn't change the fact that it was so cheap in the past they would burn it off to get rid of it.

Supply of available places to rent…

> why am I being downvoted for pointing out a flaw in the premise I'm responding to?

This is not a good look for HN, but that's what you get in just about any discussion of economics on here. You're 100% correct, and the post you're responding to makes a statement that's at odds with everything we know about economics, with no elaboration.

Immigrants increase demand which has similar effects to reducing supply but is not the same thing, OP is imprecise.

In a "increase relative supply" there could be an argument about reducing demand to do so.

HN has a predominantly progressive audience that tends to view perspectives challenging their idealistic vision as misguided or offensive. When faced with specific, pointed issues that their position may not adequately address, some users feel compelled to downvote or suppress these viewpoints rather than engaging in constructive dialogue to find solutions. They seem to struggle with the notion of not having all the answers. Even expressing this sentiment sounds hyperbolic, but the evidence appears quite clear when observing discussions here and elsewhere online.

From the rules: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "

The OP meant "available supply" or "relative supply". Assuming they meant "absolute supply" feels like it fails this rule on your part.

So if I say "supply" when I mean "demand", everyone should just disregard what I actually said and assume I actually know what I'm talking about? Words matter

The wording is imprecise. They meant, immigrants live somewhere, so there wind up being fewer places in the available supply.

You're being downvoted for being so quick to jump on an apparent flaw, without seeming to have made much of an attempt to understand the actual point. HN is a place for thoughtful discussion, not "You worded it wrong! Gotcha!"

(I know, I'm supposed to choose to interpret your position charitably, too. I leave open the possibility that you truly didn't see their point. But I found the GP's actual point really obvious, despite the imprecise wording, so I'm really having to struggle to do so...)

the wording is important! We're talking an issue of economics, so when we say supply when we really mean demand, that deserves to be corrected. Fixing a supply issue looks very different from fixing a demand issue. I thought maybe OP had some reasoning as to how he meant what he said, which is why I asked the question

Thoughtful discussion =/= pointing out flawed premises

It's not a flawed premise! It's bad wording.

The premise is, given an inelastic supply of housing, more immigrants means more of the supply occupied by them, leaving less of the supply available for non-immigrants. Point out a flaw in that, if you see one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com