>>512478851
>They provide high productivity per residential area used, which should mean a net-beneficial effect on the housing prices that other residents face.
Rents only decrease if there is unit availability introduced by the increased density, *but this will only occur if you aren’t introducing more people than there are units available to house them.* For example, in 2020, rents declined in Vancouver as many residents either sought to leave the city or returned to live with mom and dad. More importantly, however, immigration rates also declined to a 15 year low.
Bunkbed units aren’t rented like that because landlords have a soft spot for Indians or because the units are not in demand by people seeking normal living arrangements; they are rented like that because it is more profitable to charge 10 guys $800 a month each for a bed than it is to charge 3 guys $2500 a month total. This scheme falls apart if you simply turn off the constant supply of immigrants (although Trudeau did his best on the way out to make sure the situation won’t be rectifiable without mass deportations or a few decades to build out the housing stock, and Carney is not going to be any better.
Anyway, Indians in Canada (profile is slightly different in the US) overwhelmingly work low-income jobs and often get paid under the table. There’s not even a question that the majority are a net drain on public revenues when you account for the costs they will impose on society in old age; boomers don’t care about this because it is tomorrow’s problem, and they’ll be dead by then.