Housing is a general term - including single family homes, rental accommodation, investment buildings, social housing, etc. Yet, much of this current discussion following the question asked to Robertson seems to centre on whether boomers like me will be angry if the value of our retirement investment decreases. This feels frustrating to me as it seems that reporters are focussed on what will generate conflict and attention since they know that the demographic following them most closely are boomers. And the position of renters, a group likely most at risk in this precarious affordability era, gets scant attention since they are less likely to be paying for and following traditional media and have relatively little influence to affect the discussion.
Also, while legitimate questions to be posing, this focus also often re-enforces a perception that responsibility for righting the ship rests solely with the federal government.
As the author points out, a soft landing in pretty non-sensical.
Single family average and median house price ratio to average income for 25-54 year olds in Toronto in the late 70s was 4.9.
In 2023 the ratio for average was 15.6 and median was 19.1. (Base data from TRREB and StatsCan.)
In other words, house prices are three times more expensive RELATIVE TO WAGES now than 50 years ago.
There is no world in which this can be fixed without a radical solution.
Here's one radical solution:
Implement principal residence gains taxation so that capital gains will be calculated after adjusting original cost for CPI since month of purchase. Restrict SINGLE FAMILY HOME ownership to RESIDENT CANADIAN ADULT INDIVIDUALS (not corporations), and only one (1) home per adult individual, implemented as follows:
1) Establish initial implementation date. All houses purchased after this date will be subject to tax on CPI adjusted gain (with CPI adjusted losses deductible against other income) and restricted as described above. Note this is a trivial calculation.
2) housing currently owned outside the above restriction must be sold within two years of initial implementation date, or be expropriated and sold at auction (with buyer eligibility restricted as described above obviously).
3 ALL housing sold after five years after initial implementation date will be subject to tax (with losses deductible) as described above.
The two year and five year windows would give ample time for markets to adjust to a new reality and prices to reflect that. Forced sale of investment properties into a new tax regime would ensure a large price drop.
This is NOT some sort of communist plot, I’m a capitalist by definition. Rather it utilizes a market solution to a market problem, albeit by simply restricting entry into the market for the good of Canadian society. Capitalism (i.e. some people) always needs some sort of restraint to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Capitalism should serve society, not the other way around.
Restricting home ownership to residents is already done in some Caribbean, European and Asian countries, i.e. it’s not unheard of in the rest of the world.
I agree that the capital gains exemption on principle residences should go. The government should not be subsidizing people who have the good fortune to buy their home. This exemption, coupled with the fact that only 50% of capital gains on other owned assets is taxed are subsidies for those who are able to accumulate wealth, contributing to growing wealth inequality.
LOVE your ideas! I've suggested a similar gains tax when debating solutions to the housing crisis to friends and family. I'm consistently called a Communist. LOL
If you're looking for a great report on housing costs to income you can check out the "Straddling The Gap" report by Generation Squeeze. They have data 1976 to 2021 on all provinces and most large cities with graphs and even policy suggestions. https://www.gensqueeze.ca/straddling_the_gap_2022_housing_affordability
I agree that the capital gains exemption on principle residences should go. The government should not be subsidizing people who have the good fortune to buy their home. This exemption, coupled with the fact that only 50% of capital gains on other owned assets is taxed are subsidies for those who are able to accumulate wealth, contributing to growing wealth inequality.
The point you are groping toward is, there is no solution within the existing system. As in the old rule; problems cannot be solved by the systems which created them. Since there is no one present with the ability and understanding to change the system, the problem will end with a full system collapse.
You mentioned his expertise, and yet his answers requires us to assume a lot of things which have never happened before. There’s been all kinds of tax credits on housing over the years by federal and provincial governments and yet, the reduction in costs are never passed on. If he had expertise, he would know that, or he does but is outright thinking we won’t catch on. I have yet to be impressed by his so called expertise. He’s an expert at defending the status quo, which as Tim Rourke points out there’s no solution that keeps the status quo intact. One question I wish someone would ask the PM: if housing are Canadians retirement pension, how does it work? Right now older people cannot downsize because housing is so expensive, hence they can’t afford. Does the PM means that every senior needs to do a reverse mortgage? Because it makes no sense otherwise, you as an individual can never realise the capital gains on your house whilst alive.
I would like to see the CMHC focusing on non-profit housing like co-ops again, which the federal government stopped doing a few decades ago. Non-profit housing is affordable; allows people to stay in cities if they want to; and can help build community as folks are required to volunteer and help with maintaining the property.
I’m hoping that PM will be able to bring down the cost of renting. Because in the long term rental costs (individual/family) will determine savings. Savings will determine down payment and that (along with income) will impact mortgage affordability.
Also, renters include most of lower income workers, those who need the MOST help from govt policies.
And those who almost never get that help.
Finally, if we can’t suck and blow then we have to choose, and housing for ALL is the preferred choice.
Is the below part of Carney's response not a red flag? The truism of income going up as people age/gain education and advance in their careers is a) not a given, and only historically true in a general sense while grossly untrue that all Canadians experienced this, and b) it assumes the next 10-20 years will unfold with the same stability as the last 20. Other experts would note this fallacy.
Carney: "What the core issue is for younger Canadians, for all Canadians, is that the level of house prices goes down relative to their incomes. So the affordability goes up for them. Both in the medium-term and the longer-term, that’s what we’re looking to do."
When we call something technocratic it has meant a tinkering in larger machinery, and as a pejorative it also can work to mean a notable - even pathological - incuriosity towards questioning the machine.
The "level of house prices down relative to their incomes" sounds like saying "more money can afford more". Which is useless.
When I ask people to show their supply and demand math, I am asking because there is a rate of supply (starts and completions) and a rate of demand (multiple - pop. growth like immigration and new household formation and investment, etc.) and the idea, we were told, is that by building more (through density, missing middle, efficient processes and assembly lines, etc.) we can impact affordability in a positive way.
But even by the fundamentals it's not looking good. For one, data is limited on demand sources, while supply is obviously much more tangible.
The logic model of supply and demand has created a facile impression that "oversupply" will necessarily lead to lower prices, but this is being disproven as the behaviour of those owning all those condos in Toronto and Vancouver are choosing not to lower prices and instead wait until demand picks up.
When banks are saying at least one-fifth of mortgages are investors (not to mention the role of investors in new condo builds), and that in provinces with available data we see maybe one-third of all residential properties owned by multiple-property owners, we are talking about a cohort of Canadians, of companies, and of foreign owners that are definitionally not in Core Housing Need.
An incuriosity, or outright refusal to question the system producing these results will come home to roost.
In this way, Carney is setting up the next Conservative government as he seems very willing to embody to the same business-as-usual blasé that disappoints and creates trust gaps with institutions and parties.
His technocratic and deep understanding of markets, including the housing market, means he can readily outline the levers the federal government is going to use in an attempt to achieve the goal of making house more affordable for young people in the short, medium and long terms. I would like to hear some better ideas from those who predict failure and accuse the new prime minister of being bad at politics. I find it refreshing to hear an authentic answer to reporter's questions after years and years of pre-packaged messaging that meant nothing to anyone from the so called professional politicians. Mark Carney knows better than to suggest housing prices need to come down which so many predict would frighten the boomers and restrict their ability to spend. But that is part of what needs to happen. There is no government policy that will tank the housing market - the actions of buyers and sellers in response to economic conditions could significantly lower values decades ago but demographic change suggests that demand will stay strong in the larger centres. The reality is housing policy is an area governments wish they didn't have to be involved in - it's actually in the provincial jurisdiction but all Ontario has done is muddy the waters with haphazard changes to the Planning Act. Carney is doing the best job possible with the politics and the policy on this file right now.
I guess the question becomes ... what is "soon" before the critics start clamoring. There maust be coordination with the provinces and since there are conservative gov't in some, I would expect a lot of foot dragging there. Ford is consummed with providing all measures of alcohol and eliminating bike lanes. Smith wants to separate, so no help there. And we know what the federal conservatives will do.
Well, the housing issue is extremely complex. It's issues of adequate supply in the needed geography, sized to fit the buyer(s) needs - that vary; built more quickly than current schedules driven primarily by municipal planning/permitting approval processes, at affordable (and this varies) prices. So, one size, price, location, purpose doesn't fit all. And, as mentioned by others, houses have become a commodity for investors who of course wish to extract maximum value enabled by short-term rentals. Some condos in TO & Van are comparable to hotel rooms in size and therefore have a limited market. Based on this complexity - 'affordable' has nuance.
We need to explore how and why home prices became uncoupled from wages! There is also the question of huge percentages paid out to real estate brokers. When I was growing up, all housing was simple, small and affordable. Everyone owned a house. There were few rentals. Housing was not used as an investment. In fact, few people even used brokers or banks but made a direct transaction with the owner. I guarantee also that removing the GST will do nothing but lower government coffers. Prices will remain the same with the money “saved” now pocketed by others in the chain.
The exploration is simple: it's simple supply and demand.
But the demand isn't simply more people (or immigration as often asserted, although that is no doubt a factor), but the demand of more dollars chasing a limited supply.
The dollars are coming from not just people looking for a home, but domestic and offshore investors looking for not just an investment in residential real estate, but also residences repurposed to short term rentals or even just a safe haven for their money while vacant, although measures have been taken on this account.
And the perception that it's a good investment is underscored for people looking for a home by the knowledge that any gains will be tax free, and that fact is appreciated by investors even though their gains may not be tax free, because they don't have to be to enjoy the gains generated by that status for the large majority of the market.
Another factor is more women in the workforce. While FAMILY income relative to house prices may not have changed as much, the fact that it now takes two incomes to buy a house makes the prices compared to average (single) wages that much higher. I find that pretty ironic given the efforts by feminists (and economists) to encourage women in the workforce. Supply and demand again, but for wages this time ...
Once upon a time, there were only conventional mortgages: you needed 25% down to buy. Then this decreased until at one point you could buy with only 5% down. And more recently, interest rates have been incredibly low. Again, more recently, the demand is propped up by intergenerational wealth transfer, possibly including parents who have been able to leverage their own real estate wealth to assist their children.
I suggest down payments and workforce participation may be the most significant factors when comparing the last 40 years to the decades prior to that.
A sale needs a willing buyer and a willing seller.
If prices haven't come down in spite of a market glut, it's because sellers aren't willing to drop their prices to make a sale. And perhaps also buyers who aren't willing to play hardball when they should know that market conditions are on their side.
(That's a generalized answer, I'm not addressing particulars of the
The best answer being secondary to the popular answer is probably the best reason for preferring sortition to electoral politics.
Sorting answers through a political process is best done through deliberation by representatives, who, after listening to both experts and non-experts can weigh arguments judiciously, not with regard to how one's decision will impact future election chances. Current political discussion in Canada has degraded to the point where it's not much better or different than direct democracy (i.e. by referendum).
That's a lot of words, many of them true but some truly nonsensical, which basically muddy the waters.
While it is true that a house is an asset, it is primarily a place to live. It's the fact that living in Canada is so attractive that has pushed Canadian housing prices up over the decades.
But different kinds of housing are different. Building social housing for the homeless is urgent and important, but it will have zero impact on the price of housing in Rosedale in Toronto or Shaughnessy in Vancouver. Similarly, building thousands of prefab, cookie-cutter starter homes on crown land will have no effect on the price of a waterfront home on Cadboro Bay, but it will provide many young couples with places to start a family.
As for you buying your first house at age 40, nothing much has changed. It was that way 40 years ago for many of us.
Your focus on politics over practicality is, at best, unhelpful. It may generate more engagement, but it does little help alleviate the housing crisis.
Another anecdotal observation (mine) is that for most people 40 years ago, buying a first house happened well before age 30.
However, the Toronto housing market really took off 39 years ago, but crashed 4 years later, didn't start increasing again until 7 years after that and it took ANOTHER 5 years to reach the 1989 peak. (For clarity, 1986, 1990, 1997 and 2002.)
I don't think waiting until age 40 because common until post 2008 financial crisis when house pricing has again surged. I'd be more interested in real data rather than anecdotal observations though.
After just a minute or so digging, I found a Globe article that referenced this report:
As a UBC faculty member in the late '70s and early '80s it was not possible to buy a house until I moved to Hamilton and bought one, with the help of my wife's salary, at the age of 42.
So you had a career where people start earning late, seem to have not considered a condo, and lived in one of the most expensive areas in the country. That's hardly comparable to what is happening today, and given the average age of a first time homebuyer in 1980 was 29, not the norm for people your age either.
See tons of older people with fringe experiences (whether because they were particular unsuccessful, wanted to live much nearer to downtown than is the norm now, or just started earning late) act like this makes it reasonable that average earners in the vast majority of the country cannot afford homes after 10 years or so of steady work.
Housing is a general term - including single family homes, rental accommodation, investment buildings, social housing, etc. Yet, much of this current discussion following the question asked to Robertson seems to centre on whether boomers like me will be angry if the value of our retirement investment decreases. This feels frustrating to me as it seems that reporters are focussed on what will generate conflict and attention since they know that the demographic following them most closely are boomers. And the position of renters, a group likely most at risk in this precarious affordability era, gets scant attention since they are less likely to be paying for and following traditional media and have relatively little influence to affect the discussion.
Also, while legitimate questions to be posing, this focus also often re-enforces a perception that responsibility for righting the ship rests solely with the federal government.
According to a musician friend, both tuba and didgeridoo players CAN suck and blow.
As the author points out, a soft landing in pretty non-sensical.
Single family average and median house price ratio to average income for 25-54 year olds in Toronto in the late 70s was 4.9.
In 2023 the ratio for average was 15.6 and median was 19.1. (Base data from TRREB and StatsCan.)
In other words, house prices are three times more expensive RELATIVE TO WAGES now than 50 years ago.
There is no world in which this can be fixed without a radical solution.
Here's one radical solution:
Implement principal residence gains taxation so that capital gains will be calculated after adjusting original cost for CPI since month of purchase. Restrict SINGLE FAMILY HOME ownership to RESIDENT CANADIAN ADULT INDIVIDUALS (not corporations), and only one (1) home per adult individual, implemented as follows:
1) Establish initial implementation date. All houses purchased after this date will be subject to tax on CPI adjusted gain (with CPI adjusted losses deductible against other income) and restricted as described above. Note this is a trivial calculation.
2) housing currently owned outside the above restriction must be sold within two years of initial implementation date, or be expropriated and sold at auction (with buyer eligibility restricted as described above obviously).
3 ALL housing sold after five years after initial implementation date will be subject to tax (with losses deductible) as described above.
The two year and five year windows would give ample time for markets to adjust to a new reality and prices to reflect that. Forced sale of investment properties into a new tax regime would ensure a large price drop.
This is NOT some sort of communist plot, I’m a capitalist by definition. Rather it utilizes a market solution to a market problem, albeit by simply restricting entry into the market for the good of Canadian society. Capitalism (i.e. some people) always needs some sort of restraint to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Capitalism should serve society, not the other way around.
Restricting home ownership to residents is already done in some Caribbean, European and Asian countries, i.e. it’s not unheard of in the rest of the world.
I agree that the capital gains exemption on principle residences should go. The government should not be subsidizing people who have the good fortune to buy their home. This exemption, coupled with the fact that only 50% of capital gains on other owned assets is taxed are subsidies for those who are able to accumulate wealth, contributing to growing wealth inequality.
LOVE your ideas! I've suggested a similar gains tax when debating solutions to the housing crisis to friends and family. I'm consistently called a Communist. LOL
If you're looking for a great report on housing costs to income you can check out the "Straddling The Gap" report by Generation Squeeze. They have data 1976 to 2021 on all provinces and most large cities with graphs and even policy suggestions. https://www.gensqueeze.ca/straddling_the_gap_2022_housing_affordability
I agree that the capital gains exemption on principle residences should go. The government should not be subsidizing people who have the good fortune to buy their home. This exemption, coupled with the fact that only 50% of capital gains on other owned assets is taxed are subsidies for those who are able to accumulate wealth, contributing to growing wealth inequality.
The point you are groping toward is, there is no solution within the existing system. As in the old rule; problems cannot be solved by the systems which created them. Since there is no one present with the ability and understanding to change the system, the problem will end with a full system collapse.
You mentioned his expertise, and yet his answers requires us to assume a lot of things which have never happened before. There’s been all kinds of tax credits on housing over the years by federal and provincial governments and yet, the reduction in costs are never passed on. If he had expertise, he would know that, or he does but is outright thinking we won’t catch on. I have yet to be impressed by his so called expertise. He’s an expert at defending the status quo, which as Tim Rourke points out there’s no solution that keeps the status quo intact. One question I wish someone would ask the PM: if housing are Canadians retirement pension, how does it work? Right now older people cannot downsize because housing is so expensive, hence they can’t afford. Does the PM means that every senior needs to do a reverse mortgage? Because it makes no sense otherwise, you as an individual can never realise the capital gains on your house whilst alive.
I would like to see the CMHC focusing on non-profit housing like co-ops again, which the federal government stopped doing a few decades ago. Non-profit housing is affordable; allows people to stay in cities if they want to; and can help build community as folks are required to volunteer and help with maintaining the property.
I’m hoping that PM will be able to bring down the cost of renting. Because in the long term rental costs (individual/family) will determine savings. Savings will determine down payment and that (along with income) will impact mortgage affordability.
Also, renters include most of lower income workers, those who need the MOST help from govt policies.
And those who almost never get that help.
Finally, if we can’t suck and blow then we have to choose, and housing for ALL is the preferred choice.
NOT, buy a house for your retirement savings.
Is the below part of Carney's response not a red flag? The truism of income going up as people age/gain education and advance in their careers is a) not a given, and only historically true in a general sense while grossly untrue that all Canadians experienced this, and b) it assumes the next 10-20 years will unfold with the same stability as the last 20. Other experts would note this fallacy.
Carney: "What the core issue is for younger Canadians, for all Canadians, is that the level of house prices goes down relative to their incomes. So the affordability goes up for them. Both in the medium-term and the longer-term, that’s what we’re looking to do."
When we call something technocratic it has meant a tinkering in larger machinery, and as a pejorative it also can work to mean a notable - even pathological - incuriosity towards questioning the machine.
The "level of house prices down relative to their incomes" sounds like saying "more money can afford more". Which is useless.
When I ask people to show their supply and demand math, I am asking because there is a rate of supply (starts and completions) and a rate of demand (multiple - pop. growth like immigration and new household formation and investment, etc.) and the idea, we were told, is that by building more (through density, missing middle, efficient processes and assembly lines, etc.) we can impact affordability in a positive way.
But even by the fundamentals it's not looking good. For one, data is limited on demand sources, while supply is obviously much more tangible.
The logic model of supply and demand has created a facile impression that "oversupply" will necessarily lead to lower prices, but this is being disproven as the behaviour of those owning all those condos in Toronto and Vancouver are choosing not to lower prices and instead wait until demand picks up.
When banks are saying at least one-fifth of mortgages are investors (not to mention the role of investors in new condo builds), and that in provinces with available data we see maybe one-third of all residential properties owned by multiple-property owners, we are talking about a cohort of Canadians, of companies, and of foreign owners that are definitionally not in Core Housing Need.
An incuriosity, or outright refusal to question the system producing these results will come home to roost.
In this way, Carney is setting up the next Conservative government as he seems very willing to embody to the same business-as-usual blasé that disappoints and creates trust gaps with institutions and parties.
His technocratic and deep understanding of markets, including the housing market, means he can readily outline the levers the federal government is going to use in an attempt to achieve the goal of making house more affordable for young people in the short, medium and long terms. I would like to hear some better ideas from those who predict failure and accuse the new prime minister of being bad at politics. I find it refreshing to hear an authentic answer to reporter's questions after years and years of pre-packaged messaging that meant nothing to anyone from the so called professional politicians. Mark Carney knows better than to suggest housing prices need to come down which so many predict would frighten the boomers and restrict their ability to spend. But that is part of what needs to happen. There is no government policy that will tank the housing market - the actions of buyers and sellers in response to economic conditions could significantly lower values decades ago but demographic change suggests that demand will stay strong in the larger centres. The reality is housing policy is an area governments wish they didn't have to be involved in - it's actually in the provincial jurisdiction but all Ontario has done is muddy the waters with haphazard changes to the Planning Act. Carney is doing the best job possible with the politics and the policy on this file right now.
I guess the question becomes ... what is "soon" before the critics start clamoring. There maust be coordination with the provinces and since there are conservative gov't in some, I would expect a lot of foot dragging there. Ford is consummed with providing all measures of alcohol and eliminating bike lanes. Smith wants to separate, so no help there. And we know what the federal conservatives will do.
Well, the housing issue is extremely complex. It's issues of adequate supply in the needed geography, sized to fit the buyer(s) needs - that vary; built more quickly than current schedules driven primarily by municipal planning/permitting approval processes, at affordable (and this varies) prices. So, one size, price, location, purpose doesn't fit all. And, as mentioned by others, houses have become a commodity for investors who of course wish to extract maximum value enabled by short-term rentals. Some condos in TO & Van are comparable to hotel rooms in size and therefore have a limited market. Based on this complexity - 'affordable' has nuance.
"For the former, the critique is, essentially, that you can’t suck and blow at the same time, though politicians will always try to."
Politicians don't *try* to suck and blow at the same time – they are very successful at it.
We need to explore how and why home prices became uncoupled from wages! There is also the question of huge percentages paid out to real estate brokers. When I was growing up, all housing was simple, small and affordable. Everyone owned a house. There were few rentals. Housing was not used as an investment. In fact, few people even used brokers or banks but made a direct transaction with the owner. I guarantee also that removing the GST will do nothing but lower government coffers. Prices will remain the same with the money “saved” now pocketed by others in the chain.
The exploration is simple: it's simple supply and demand.
But the demand isn't simply more people (or immigration as often asserted, although that is no doubt a factor), but the demand of more dollars chasing a limited supply.
The dollars are coming from not just people looking for a home, but domestic and offshore investors looking for not just an investment in residential real estate, but also residences repurposed to short term rentals or even just a safe haven for their money while vacant, although measures have been taken on this account.
And the perception that it's a good investment is underscored for people looking for a home by the knowledge that any gains will be tax free, and that fact is appreciated by investors even though their gains may not be tax free, because they don't have to be to enjoy the gains generated by that status for the large majority of the market.
Another factor is more women in the workforce. While FAMILY income relative to house prices may not have changed as much, the fact that it now takes two incomes to buy a house makes the prices compared to average (single) wages that much higher. I find that pretty ironic given the efforts by feminists (and economists) to encourage women in the workforce. Supply and demand again, but for wages this time ...
Once upon a time, there were only conventional mortgages: you needed 25% down to buy. Then this decreased until at one point you could buy with only 5% down. And more recently, interest rates have been incredibly low. Again, more recently, the demand is propped up by intergenerational wealth transfer, possibly including parents who have been able to leverage their own real estate wealth to assist their children.
I suggest down payments and workforce participation may be the most significant factors when comparing the last 40 years to the decades prior to that.
If it is supply and demand, why are there thousands of condos not being purchased in Vancouver and Toronto? Prices have not come down.
A sale needs a willing buyer and a willing seller.
If prices haven't come down in spite of a market glut, it's because sellers aren't willing to drop their prices to make a sale. And perhaps also buyers who aren't willing to play hardball when they should know that market conditions are on their side.
(That's a generalized answer, I'm not addressing particulars of the
Toronto or Vancouver condo markets.)
The best answer being secondary to the popular answer is probably the best reason for preferring sortition to electoral politics.
Sorting answers through a political process is best done through deliberation by representatives, who, after listening to both experts and non-experts can weigh arguments judiciously, not with regard to how one's decision will impact future election chances. Current political discussion in Canada has degraded to the point where it's not much better or different than direct democracy (i.e. by referendum).
That's a lot of words, many of them true but some truly nonsensical, which basically muddy the waters.
While it is true that a house is an asset, it is primarily a place to live. It's the fact that living in Canada is so attractive that has pushed Canadian housing prices up over the decades.
But different kinds of housing are different. Building social housing for the homeless is urgent and important, but it will have zero impact on the price of housing in Rosedale in Toronto or Shaughnessy in Vancouver. Similarly, building thousands of prefab, cookie-cutter starter homes on crown land will have no effect on the price of a waterfront home on Cadboro Bay, but it will provide many young couples with places to start a family.
As for you buying your first house at age 40, nothing much has changed. It was that way 40 years ago for many of us.
Your focus on politics over practicality is, at best, unhelpful. It may generate more engagement, but it does little help alleviate the housing crisis.
Another anecdotal observation (mine) is that for most people 40 years ago, buying a first house happened well before age 30.
However, the Toronto housing market really took off 39 years ago, but crashed 4 years later, didn't start increasing again until 7 years after that and it took ANOTHER 5 years to reach the 1989 peak. (For clarity, 1986, 1990, 1997 and 2002.)
I don't think waiting until age 40 because common until post 2008 financial crisis when house pricing has again surged. I'd be more interested in real data rather than anecdotal observations though.
After just a minute or so digging, I found a Globe article that referenced this report:
https://teraintelligence.teranet.ca/market_insights/market-insights-q1-2025/#
The point of it is that average age for first home buyers didn't reach 40 until 2024.
As a UBC faculty member in the late '70s and early '80s it was not possible to buy a house until I moved to Hamilton and bought one, with the help of my wife's salary, at the age of 42.
So you had a career where people start earning late, seem to have not considered a condo, and lived in one of the most expensive areas in the country. That's hardly comparable to what is happening today, and given the average age of a first time homebuyer in 1980 was 29, not the norm for people your age either.
See tons of older people with fringe experiences (whether because they were particular unsuccessful, wanted to live much nearer to downtown than is the norm now, or just started earning late) act like this makes it reasonable that average earners in the vast majority of the country cannot afford homes after 10 years or so of steady work.