[didibus]

I'm interested in real facts, thesis, explanations with substance.

There seem to be many variables whose correlations and effects are not well understood. You claim you've figured it out, that the only effect of increased housing price in the Toronto metro is simply due to migrants, foreign students and foreign investors. Okay, well I'm not against that explanation, but you got to back it up with something. Otherwise it's as good as any other, such as what I pointed too, the large number of single family unit being held by the retired or soon to be retired boomer generation.

My personal opinion, neither are the whole equation, the market of housing is complex, and I think we're far from understanding it, which is why there are simply no cities with landlocked and high populations that have figured out how to slow prices and make housing affordable yet.

But I'm totally willing to hear out anyone whose done some deep analysis and got some good thesis around it.

Personally, I wish politics allowed for testing policies and let people experiment with them a little more loosely without worry of saying ok this failed we're rolling it back and trying something else. If that was the case, I think it be curious to try something like stop taking migrants for a year and measure impact. Honestly the migrant argument is always being brought up, so if anything, it would confirm or deny more clearly that variable, and we could hopefully move on.

Also, you did get me curious into the data, but to be honest, the stats are hard to fully get clarity on what they include and do not. Like there are 600k foreign students, but that's the absolute total it seems, not a year over year increase. And students stay for a while, so it's not like each year there are 600k new students, it's often the same returning students. So we'd need to look at the year over year increase.

Finally, with these type of things, the flip side must also be considered. Based here: https://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-rapport/imp.... foreign students create 80k jobs in Ontario and provide substantial income to the local government. So that would need to be accounted as well if say we decided to restrict their numbers further.

[waterlooman]

The solution is so simple, our population growth rate is too high relative to housing production, so the quickest, most immediate and obvious solution is to reduce immigration significantly. Within a couple years you will see housing demand fall and with it, prices! This isn't rocket science. And our economy must be able to sustain itself on a steady state population or we have a serious structural problem. You can still have immigration, but it must not be detrimental to the people living here.

[didibus]

> The solution is so simple, our population growth rate is too high relative to housing production, so the quickest, most immediate and obvious solution is to reduce immigration significantly. Within a couple years you will see housing demand fall and with it, prices

From my perspective, your rationale is a logical fallacy of the single cause.

If you're not familiar with it, I recommend reading:

* http://believingscience.blogspot.com/2016/08/todays-logical-...

* https://medium.com/@edeubanks/argumentum-ad-simplicitate-9f5...

Now what happens with this fallacy isn't that you're for sure wrong, but that you have determined for sure that you are right, yet there are multiple probable cause at play here, but you single one out and attribute that one as a sufficient cause without justification.

And personally, even if it was the single simple cause of high house prices in the Toronto metro, you still haven't addressed the opportunity cost. We don't have immigration out of generosity, most migrants are selected through a thorough application process, and we pull in people with labor skill that we need, or with wealth that we want them to bring over. This is true of foreign investors and students as well. There are reasons why we do so, because most analyst see it as a net positive for our economy. I'm with you where I would like our economy to sustain itself without any external investment, but what I would like and reality are two different things. Right now it doesn't seem like it would. So what are we going to do about that? If you cut out foreign investment, immigration and students you need a strategy for that or we'll just take a huge hit financially.

Also, keep in mind we have a decreasing workforce. Based on this article https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/from-a-baby-boom-to-a-reti... the foreign workforce we're taking in isn't enough to fill the workforce gap we have due to an aging population. We're losing workers, this isn't steady state. That's why we ramped up immigration:

> For Canada as a whole, the challenge is to become more competitive even as we lose these established workers. Immigration is helping to grow our talent pool. We welcomed more than 300,000 new immigrants last year, about 60% of whom are skilled workers. The immigration minister has described this as “the new normal.” Yet it still doesn’t cover the annual retirement rate, so we’re going to have to get more creative.

It's going to be hard to manage without immigration, we just didn't have enough kids, and we didn't educate, teach and train our kids properly to be able to replace our workforce in a steady state. That's the other side of the problem. We take a few refugees as a feel good pat on the back, but the truth is, most immigration we take in is so that we can sustain our workforce, keep our businesses competitive and prevent our economy from crashing down. At least, that's the reason why we do so. Now maybe that's also a wrong conclusion, maybe there is another way, maybe people overblow the impact of not taking immigrants would have to our economy, but economics is hard, figuring out what is best for the economy isn't simple, in my opinion at least.