Affordability: Biden's Full Term vs. Trump's Second Term to Date

What the Official Numbers Tell Voters About Inflation, Wages, and Purchasing Power

When Americans shop for groceries, fill their gas tanks, or pay the rent, they don't purchase political promises, they purchase necessities.

Every election cycle, politicians promise to make life more affordable. Supporters highlight successes, opponents emphasize failures, and media coverage often focuses on isolated statistics rather than the broader picture.

But affordability should not be measured by campaign speeches or political talking points.

It should be measured by objective economic data.

Fortunately, those measures already exist.

Every month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and average hourly earnings—two of the most widely accepted indicators used by economists to evaluate inflation, wages, and household purchasing power.

The question therefore becomes straightforward:

How does Joe Biden's Democratic Party's full four-year administration compare with Donald Trump's Republican Party's second term so far, using exactly the same official measures?

Understanding Affordability

Affordability is not determined by the price of one product or one month's inflation report.

Instead, economists generally evaluate affordability using three fundamental measurements:

• the annual rate of inflation,
• the cumulative increase in consumer prices, and
• whether wages are keeping pace with those prices.

When wages rise faster than inflation, purchasing power improves.

When inflation rises faster than wages, purchasing power declines.

Using those measures provides a far clearer picture than focusing on isolated headlines.

Inflation: Average Pace and Total Price Increases

The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a clear difference between the two periods.

Metric	Biden (Jan. 2021–Jan. 2025)	Trump Second Term (Jan. 2025–June 2026)
Average annual inflation	4.95%	3.14%
Cumulative CPI increase	21.8%	5.0%
Highest 12-month inflation	9.1% (June 2022)	4.2% (May 2026)
Most recent 12-month inflation	2.9% (2024 average)	3.5% (June 2026)

During President Biden's four-year administration, consumer prices increased by approximately 22 percent overall.

During Donald Trump's second term to date, consumer prices have risen approximately 5 percent.

Equally important, the average annual inflation rate has been about 1.8 percentage points lower during the current administration than during Biden's full term.

Real Wages: The Measure That Matters Most

Inflation alone does not determine affordability.

The more meaningful question is whether workers' wages have kept pace with rising prices.

Using annualized averages from official BLS data:

Annualized Measure	Biden	Trump (to date)
Average wage growth	4.72%	3.50%
Average inflation	4.95%	3.14%
Purchasing power	−0.23%	+0.36%

Using these annualized comparisons, inflation slightly exceeded wage growth during the Biden administration, resulting in a modest decline in average purchasing power.

During Trump's second term so far, average wage growth has modestly exceeded average inflation, leaving purchasing power slightly ahead on an annualized basis

Everyday Household Essentials

Looking beyond the overall inflation rate reveals how everyday necessities have behaved relative to wages.

Category	Biden Average Annual Increase	Trump Average Annual Increase
Food at home	5.3%	2.7%
Shelter	5.6%	3.3%
Electricity	6.5%	4.0%
Apparel	2.9%	3.9%
Gasoline	10.2%	4.3%
New vehicles	4.8%	0.3%
Used vehicles	8.8%	–1.4%
Auto insurance & repairs	11.4%	2.4%

Several observations emerge.

Food inflation has slowed considerably.

Housing costs remain elevated but have moderated.

Vehicle prices have largely stabilized.

Auto insurance inflation has cooled dramatically.

Some categories, including clothing and electricity, continue to experience upward pressure, partly reflecting tariff changes and infrastructure costs.

Overall, however, a larger share of household necessities has been increasing more slowly relative to wage growth than during the previous administration.

Why Many Families Still Feel Financial Pressure

One important distinction is frequently overlooked in public debate.

Inflation measures how quickly prices are rising, not whether prices return to previous levels.

If inflation falls from 8 percent to 3 percent, prices are still increasing.

They are simply increasing more slowly.

Consequently, households continue to feel the effects of the significant price increases experienced during 2021 through 2023.

Lower inflation does not erase earlier increases.

It merely slows the pace of future increases.

Understanding this distinction helps explain why many Americans still feel financially stretched even though inflation has moderated considerably.

Tax Policy and Disposable Income

Inflation is only one component of affordability.

Take-home pay also matters.

The recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced several temporary federal tax deductions, including provisions related to qualified overtime, reported tips, and interest paid on eligible new U.S.-assembled vehicles.

For many hourly workers and service employees who qualify, these deductions may increase disposable income and partially offset higher living costs.

The precise benefit depends upon each taxpayer's income, employment circumstances, and eligibility.

 What These Numbers Do and Do Not Prove

Economic outcomes are influenced by far more than presidential policy alone.

Inflation reflects numerous factors, including Federal Reserve monetary policy, global energy markets, supply-chain disruptions, wars, productivity, consumer demand, fiscal policy, and international events.

Therefore, these comparisons should not be interpreted as proving that every economic outcome resulted solely from one administration's decisions.

However, they do provide voters with a consistent, objective framework for comparing the economic environment experienced under different administrations using the same official measures.

Bottom Line for Voters

Based on the official Bureau of Labor Statistics data available today, several conclusions emerge.

The average annual inflation rate has been lower during Donald Trump's second term to date than during Joe Biden's full four-year administration.

Average wage growth has slightly exceeded inflation during the current period, whereas inflation slightly outpaced wage growth over Biden's full term.

Many major household expenses, including groceries, housing, vehicle prices, and auto insurance, have also experienced slower rates of increase relative to wages than during the previous administration, although some categories, such as electricity and apparel, continue to face upward pressures.

The substantial price increases that occurred between 2021 and 2023 continue to affect household budgets because lower inflation slows future increases rather than reversing previous ones.

Nevertheless, using the official measures of inflation, wage growth, and purchasing power available today, the economic data indicate that household affordability has performed more favourably during Donald Trump's second term to date than during Joe Biden's full administration.

Financing Costs, Price Levels, and Why Many Families Still Feel Financial Pressure

Although the pace of inflation has slowed, two important realities continue to affect household budgets: financing costs and the higher overall price level left by the inflation surge of 2021–2023.

First, borrowing remains expensive. As of mid-2026, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate remains around 6.5% to 6.7%, while many credit cards continue to carry interest rates exceeding 20%. Consequently, even when home or vehicle prices stabilize, monthly payments remain substantially higher than they would have been when mortgage rates were near 3% in 2021. Financing costs therefore remain a significant burden for many families.

Second, inflation measures the rate at which prices increase—not the level of prices. A slower inflation rate does not reverse earlier price increases; it simply means prices are rising more slowly.

Using the Consumer Price Index, a basket of goods and services that cost approximately $100 when President Biden took office in January 2021 now costs roughly $122. Most of that increase occurred during 2021 through 2024. Since January 2025, prices have risen by approximately another $5.

Recent federal tax changes may provide some relief for eligible workers. Temporary deductions for qualified overtime premiums, reported tips, and interest paid on qualifying U.S.-assembled vehicle loans increase disposable income for many middle-income households, although the benefits gradually phase out at higher income levels.

Meanwhile, real average hourly earnings have remained broadly stable over the past year, while unemployment has remained relatively low at approximately 4.2%.

Taken together, these facts help explain why two seemingly contradictory observations can both be true.

The annual pace of inflation has moderated, and affordability has improved relative to the previous four years according to official inflation and wage measures.

At the same time, many families continue to feel financially stretched because they are living with the cumulative effects of earlier price increases, elevated borrowing costs, and housing expenses that remain historically high.

Understanding both realities is essential to understanding the true state of affordability.

Restoring Accountability

Affordability should never be reduced to a campaign slogan, a selective headline, or a single monthly statistic chosen to support a political narrative.

Voters deserve comparisons based on the same measurements, over clearly defined periods, using official and publicly available data. That means distinguishing between the rate of inflation and the overall price level, comparing wage growth with the rising cost of living, and acknowledging both improvements and continuing pressures.

No president controls every economic force. Interest rates, wars, energy markets, supply chains, Federal Reserve decisions, productivity, taxation, and government spending all influence household finances. Political leaders must nevertheless remain accountable for the policies they adopt, the conditions over which they exercise influence, and the results experienced by citizens.

Accountability also requires intellectual honesty from the media, economists, political parties, and voters themselves. Facts should not become credible only when they favour one side, nor be dismissed merely because they favour the other.

The evidence available to date does not show that every affordability problem has disappeared. Prices remain high, housing remains difficult for millions of families, and several essential costs continue to rise faster than wages.

But the same evidence does show that inflation has increased at a slower average annual rate during Donald Trump’s second term to date than during Joe Biden’s full administration, while wage growth has performed somewhat more favourably relative to inflation.

That conclusion should not be exaggerated.

Nor should it be concealed.

In a responsible democracy, citizens should judge governments neither by personality nor partisan loyalty, but by measurable results.

Affordability begins with household purchasing power.

Accountability begins with telling voters the truth about it.

 

Canada and the United States: Time to Renew the World's Most Successful Economic Partnership

What History Teaches About Free Trade, Shared Prosperity, and Looking Forward Instead of Backward

Every day, Canada and the United States exchange over $800 billion in goods, services, energy, investment, and ideas annually.

Together, we have built one of the most integrated and successful economic partnerships in modern history. Yet today, instead of strengthening that relationship, both countries increasingly find themselves arguing over trade disputes rooted in policies designed for a very different era.

It is time to stop asking how each country can win, and begin asking how both countries can prosper together, for the citizens of both countries'.

Understanding Before Negotiating

One of the first principles of successful negotiation is remarkably simple:

Before trying to persuade the other side, first understand why they hold their position.

Too often, trade negotiations begin with accusations rather than understanding. Politicians speak to domestic audiences. Interest groups defend established systems. Each side focuses on its own grievances while overlooking the legitimate concerns of the other.

Successful negotiations begin differently.

They begin by recognizing that reasonable people can have different priorities while still seeking mutually beneficial solutions.

That philosophy should once again guide Canada–United States trade relations.

A Partnership Unlike Any Other

No two sovereign nations enjoy a closer economic relationship than Canada and the United States.

Together we share:

• the world's longest undefended border;
• one of the world's largest bilateral trading relationships;
• highly integrated manufacturing;
• shared energy infrastructure;
• NORAD and decades of defence cooperation;
• increasingly connected critical mineral supply chains;
• democratic institutions founded upon the rule of law.

This relationship was never built upon one nation defeating the other. It was built upon cooperation.

Every major agreement, from the Auto Pact to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and now USMCA, recognized one central truth:

When Canada and America work together, both countries become stronger.

The Reality of Modern Trade

Trade today is no longer simply about tariffs. It is about:

• supply chains,
• energy security,
• artificial intelligence,
• advanced manufacturing,
• food security,
• national security,
• critical minerals,
• technological competitiveness.

The world has changed dramatically since many existing trade policies were created. Both countries now face increasing competition from rapidly expanding economies, particularly China and other emerging industrial powers.

Instead of competing against each other, Canada and the United States should increasingly view themselves as partners competing together within the global economy, especially in strategic areas that reduce reliance on adversarial supply chains.

Modernizing Outdated Policies

Every long-standing partnership accumulates policies that made sense when introduced but deserve periodic review. This applies equally to both countries.

Canada has supply management. The United States has agricultural subsidies, Buy American procurement rules, softwood lumber duties, and other measures that periodically create friction.

Rather than treating every disagreement as a national confrontation, both governments should ask a more constructive question:

Which policies continue serving their intended purpose, and which have simply become obstacles to future prosperity?

That conversation should occur without ideology and without political rhetoric. It should be guided by evidence.

Supply Management as One Example

One policy frequently raised during Canada–U.S. trade discussions is Canada's system of supply management for dairy, poultry, and eggs.

The system rests upon three principal pillars:

• production quotas,
• administered farm prices,
• high import tariffs beyond established quotas.

Its objectives were understandable: to stabilize farm income, ensure domestic food production, and reduce price volatility. Those goals reflected the realities of the 1960s and 1970s.

However, today's economy presents different challenges. Independent economic analyses, such as a 2026 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, estimate that supply management increases consumer costs by roughly $224–$244 per person annually (with higher proportional burdens on lower-income households), while limiting competition and creating recurring trade friction with Canada's largest trading partner.

Reasonable people may disagree about the precise figures, but the broader policy question remains: Should a system created decades ago continue unchanged if more efficient alternatives exist?

Respecting Farmers While Modernizing

Reform should never mean abandoning those who built Canada's agricultural success. Canadian dairy farmers invested in good faith under rules established by government. Many have invested their life savings in production quotas. Many planned their retirement around those assets.

Changing public policy without recognizing those legitimate expectations would be both unfair and economically disruptive.

If reform is pursued, farmers deserve:

• full consultation,
• predictable timelines,
• fair compensation,
• transition assistance,
• financing support,
• opportunities for diversification.

Good policy protects both consumers and producers. The objective is modernization—not punishment.

Looking Beyond Dairy

The larger opportunity extends far beyond milk. Imagine a broader Canada–United States modernization agreement that included:

• enhanced energy cooperation;
• integrated electricity infrastructure;
• critical mineral partnerships;
• defence procurement cooperation;
• AI and advanced manufacturing;
• regulatory harmonization;
• infrastructure investment;
• resilient North American supply chains.

Within such an agreement, reforms to sectors such as dairy, poultry, and eggs become part of a comprehensive strategy—not isolated concessions. This transforms negotiation from a zero-sum exercise into a shared investment in future competitiveness. Lower consumer prices in Canada would boost real wages for families, while providing greater predictability and market access for producers on both sides.

A Practical Path Forward

Rather than beginning with demands, both governments could establish a joint technical working group composed of officials from finance, agriculture, trade, and independent economists. Its mandate would be to evaluate consumer impacts, producer exposure, reform options, and transition strategies using transparent evidence.

A phased approach over five to ten years, combined with fair transition support for affected producers, could reduce uncertainty while allowing both countries to negotiate broader gains in areas such as energy, critical minerals, defence procurement, and regulatory cooperation.

Such an approach emphasizes that modernization is intended to benefit both Canadian consumers and Canadian farmers while also addressing longstanding concerns raised by U.S. producers.

Leadership Requires Looking Beyond the Next Election

The greatest leaders rarely focus solely on the next election. They prepare their countries for the next generation.

That often requires questioning long-standing assumptions while respecting those who built today's prosperity. It requires balancing economic efficiency with fairness. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that compromise is not weakness. It is often the highest form of statesmanship.

Renewing an Extraordinary Partnership

Canada and the United States have spent more than a century building one of the world's most successful bilateral relationships. That partnership has weathered wars, recessions, financial crises, and political disagreements. It has endured because leaders on both sides understood a simple truth: Our futures are deeply connected.

The question today is not whether every existing policy should remain unchanged, nor whether one country should prevail over the other. The real question is whether both nations possess the vision to modernize outdated policies together while preserving the partnership that has served both peoples so well.

History reminds us that the strongest alliances are not those that resist change, but those willing to adapt together. Canada and the United States have repeatedly demonstrated that cooperation produces greater prosperity than confrontation.

If both governments approach the next generation of trade discussions with respect, evidence, and a shared commitment to long-term prosperity, they can once again build not merely a free trade agreement, but the world's strongest economic partnership, one that makes North America more competitive, more secure, and more affordable for families on both sides of the border.

The USA Democratic Party’s Big Tent: Now Includes a Movement to Replace America’s Constitutional Order?

 

What happens when a political movement uses the ballot line of an established party, not merely to reform government, but to replace its constitutional foundations?

That is no longer a theoretical question in the United States.

The Democratic Socialists of America has released its 2026–27 national program, Workers Deserve More. Much of the public discussion will understandably focus on its calls for universal healthcare, social housing, free higher education, stronger unions, a 32-hour workweek, wealth taxation, public ownership, and sweeping environmental programs.

But buried beneath those familiar economic promises is something far more consequential. The DSA is proposing not merely a different set of government policies, but a fundamentally different system of American government.

The DSA’s Constitutional Revolution

Under its section titled “Working-Class Democracy,” the organization calls for abolishing the Electoral College, abolishing the Senate, replacing the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress, and establishing a new political system intended to place the working class in control of government and the economy.

These are not minor adjustments to American democracy. They represent a direct challenge to the constitutional architecture of the United States.

The Necessary Distinction

The Democratic Party is not the Democratic Socialists of America. Most Democratic voters are not DSA members. Many Democratic officeholders would reject some—or perhaps most—of the DSA program. The national Democratic Party has not formally adopted the DSA platform, and it would be unfair and inaccurate to suggest that every Democratic candidate supports democratic socialism.

But that does not end the discussion. The DSA and its supporters have frequently used Democratic Party ballot lines to run socialist candidates. While the organization speaks of eventually building an independent working-class party, it continues to build influence through Democratic structures. This creates a legitimate question for Democratic voters and the Democratic Party itself: How broad can a political “big tent” become before it begins sheltering a movement whose ultimate objective is to replace the tent altogether?

What the DSA Now Proposes

The DSA’s newly released program is unusually candid. It states: “For the working class to govern, we need a new political system.” It then calls for the abolition of the Electoral College and proposes replacing both the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress. It also proposes replacing the two-party system with a multiparty democracy, expanding the House of Representatives, establishing proportional representation and ranked-choice voting, and abolishing the Senate.

The program goes beyond institutional restructuring. It calls for public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries, aggressive wealth taxation, extensive social guarantees, broader voting rights for permanent residents and incarcerated people, and a political order built around what it calls “economic democracy.”

Some of these proposals can be debated individually. But the deeper issue is that the DSA does not present these ideas merely as procedural reforms. It places them within an explicit project to transform the American economy from private capitalist ownership toward collective and public control. Social policy reform and constitutional revolution are not the same proposition.

The Founders’ Design

The United States Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent any one institution, political faction, economic class, or temporary majority from controlling the entire machinery of government. James Madison summarized the principle in Federalist No. 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The system was designed to make concentrated power difficult. That frustration was intentional. The Founders had witnessed abuses by monarchies, legislatures, factions, and majorities. The American constitutional system therefore divides authority, slows political action, forces negotiation, and allows different institutions to restrain one another. It is often inefficient. But constitutional liberty is not always efficient.

The DSA’s Argument and the Risks

The DSA regards many of these restraints not as protections, but as obstacles. Its supporters argue that the Senate gives disproportionate influence to smaller states, that the Electoral College can produce presidents who lose the national popular vote, that the Supreme Court possesses excessive power, and that wealthy interests exercise disproportionate influence.

These criticisms cannot simply be dismissed. But recognizing deficiencies in the present system does not require accepting every proposed remedy — especially wholesale replacement. History offers sobering warnings: the Weimar Republic’s instability under proportional representation, Venezuela’s slide into authoritarianism after eroding independent institutions, and other cases where dismantling checks in pursuit of radical change led to concentrated power and disappointing results.

Under the DSA proposal, Congress would become the dominant institution, with the executive and judiciary subordinate to it. This is legislative supremacy. While parliamentary systems exist elsewhere, the DSA’s version is explicitly designed to enable democratic socialist transformation. The constitutional structure and the economic project are inseparable.

Risks to Rights and Federalism

Subordinating the judiciary to Congress would weaken the Bill of Rights protections for speech, religion, property, and due process — rights that matter most when a majority finds them inconvenient. Abolishing the Senate would transform American federalism, shifting power decisively toward large population centers.

The Economic Vision Behind the Political Vision

The constitutional proposals cannot be separated from the DSA’s wider economic program — public ownership of major industries, a 32-hour workweek without reduced pay, extensive wealth taxes, and more. These may sound humane in isolation, but economic promises do not repeal economic trade-offs. Public ownership transfers power rather than eliminating it.

The Democratic Party’s Responsibility

The Democratic Party has long described itself as a broad coalition. A big tent can be a democratic strength. But political openness also carries responsibility. When candidates seek office using the Democratic Party ballot line, voters are entitled to know whether those candidates merely support stronger social programs or ultimately favour the DSA’s proposed constitutional transformation.

Do they support abolishing the Senate? Do they support replacing the President with an executive subordinate to Congress? Do they support replacing an independent Supreme Court with a judiciary subordinate to Congress? Do they support a new political system and constitutional order?

These are not accusations. They are legitimate questions. Voters should not be expected to discover the distinction after an election.

Reform or Replacement?

America’s constitutional system has never been perfect. The country has changed through amendments, legislation, protest, court decisions, and elections. That history proves that constitutional government must be capable of correction. But it also demonstrates the difference between reforming constitutional government and replacing its underlying architecture.

The DSA deserves credit for stating its objective more plainly than many political movements do. Americans are entitled to evaluate it on those terms.

Why This Matters Now

Every voter has the right to know not only what benefits a candidate promises, but what political system that candidate ultimately wishes to preserve — or replace. The real question is whether voters fully understand the institutional transformation being proposed under familiar party labels.

Conclusion

The Democratic Socialists of America is no longer speaking only in the language of progressive reform. Its 2026–27 program openly proposes replacing central pillars of the American constitutional system with a new political order intended to advance democratic socialism.

The Democratic Party has not adopted that program. Most Democrats should not be assumed to support it. But because DSA-endorsed candidates can and do seek office through Democratic ballot lines, the relationship can no longer be treated as politically irrelevant.

A free society requires clarity when one faction within a coalition seeks not merely to govern under the existing constitutional order, but to redesign it. Reforming American democracy is one thing. Replacing the constitutional foundations that divide and restrain political power is something else entirely.

Every political movement promises what it will do with power. The more important question is what will remain capable of restraining it once that power has been obtained. Where power is being concentrated, citizens have a responsibility to ask why — before constitutional safeguards are removed, not after they are gone.

The Great Condo Illusion How Canada's Housing Model Shifted Billions of Dollars of Risk onto Ordinary Canadians

 June 26, 2026

What if the biggest cost of owning a condominium isn't the purchase price, but the bills that arrive twenty years later?

Millions of Canadians believe they're buying a home. In reality, many are entering a long-term financial partnership with hundreds of strangers—one that may carry legal and financial obligations for decades. Before buying a condominium, every Canadian should understand how the system really works.

Millions of Canadians Believe They Own Their Home…

Yet many are actually entering a long-term financial partnership with hundreds of strangers—one that carries legal and financial liabilities that may last for decades.

For most Canadians, purchasing a condominium represents a major milestone: the first step toward home ownership, financial independence, and building equity.

What many buyers discover years later is that condominium ownership is fundamentally different from owning a traditional detached house.

Unlike a detached home, where maintenance decisions rest primarily with the individual owner, condominium ownership means sharing legal and financial responsibility for an entire building. Every elevator, roof, parking garage, heating system, balcony, hallway, and structural component eventually becomes a collective obligation.

Many buyers understand the mortgage.

Far fewer understand the long-term liabilities.

Buying a condominium is not simply buying real estate. It is buying into a corporation whose financial health may affect your own for decades to come.

---

How Canada Arrived Here

Before the mid-1970s, developers commonly built purpose-built rental apartment buildings. They retained ownership, rented the units, maintained the properties, and accepted the long-term operational risks associated with owning them.

Over time, however, rent controls, rising construction costs, inflation, higher interest rates, taxation changes, and increasing regulation made that business model far less attractive.

Condominiums offered developers an entirely different business model.

Instead of holding apartment buildings for decades and recovering their investment slowly through rental income, developers could pre-sell individual units, recover their construction costs quickly, realize their profits, and move on to the next project.

The business risk changed.

More importantly, who carried that risk changed.

The long-term obligations once carried by developers were quietly transferred to ordinary Canadians.

Few people recognize just how significant this transformation has been.

---

The False Sense of Ownership

Many purchasers believe:

"I own my condo."

Technically, they own their individual unit.

But they also jointly own—and must jointly finance—the maintenance and eventual replacement of:

• Elevators
• Roofs
• Underground parking garages
• HVAC systems
• Plumbing and electrical infrastructure
• Building envelopes
• Balconies and railings
• Windows
• Hallways and common areas

In effect, every owner enters a long-term financial partnership with hundreds of people they may never meet.

The decisions made by a volunteer condominium board—and the financial circumstances of fellow owners—can directly affect everyone's future costs.

---

Who Really Owns the Building?

One of the greatest misunderstandings surrounding condominium ownership is the belief that owners control their property's future in much the same way as someone who owns a detached house.

They do not.

While owners possess legal title to their individual unit and an undivided interest in the common elements, many major financial decisions are made collectively through the condominium corporation under provincial condominium legislation.

Future maintenance schedules, reserve fund contributions, major capital projects, and increases in condominium fees are determined through the governance of the corporation.

Individual owners remain legally responsible for paying their share—even if they personally opposed the decision.

That is one of the fundamental differences between owning a detached house and owning a condominium.

---

The Costs That Never Stop

First-time buyers usually calculate:

• Mortgage payments
• Property taxes
• Insurance
• Utilities

Far fewer fully anticipate the continuing financial obligations that accompany condominium ownership.

Monthly condominium fees generally rise over time as labour costs, utilities, insurance premiums, inflation, and maintenance expenses increase.

More significant, however, are special assessments.

When reserve funds prove insufficient to pay for major repairs, condominium corporations may levy mandatory lump-sum assessments against every owner.

These assessments can range from several thousand dollars to well over $100,000 per unit.

They are not optional.

Failure to pay may result in a lien being registered against the unit and, in extreme circumstances, legal proceedings that could ultimately lead to the loss of the property.

---

The Twenty-Year Reality

Most condominium buildings perform well during their early years.

Developers naturally focus on delivering attractive buildings that perform well during the initial sales period.

The largest expenses typically emerge between years 15 and 25, when major building systems begin reaching the end of their service lives.

These commonly include:

• Elevator modernization
• HVAC system replacement
• Roof replacement
• Balcony and railing reconstruction
• Underground garage waterproofing and structural repairs
• Plumbing upgrades
• Window replacement
• Building envelope rehabilitation

Most buyers inspect the kitchen, bathrooms, flooring, and view.

Very few carefully examine the reserve fund, engineering reports, or projected capital expenditures that may ultimately cost far more than the finishes inside the unit.

Thousands of condominiums built during Canada's building boom between 2000 and 2010 are now entering this critical stage.

This is not simply an issue affecting individual buildings.

It represents a national infrastructure challenge quietly emerging across Canada's condominium sector.

---

Who Pays?

Cost Factor	Condominium Ownership	Purpose-Built Rental
Major Capital Repairs	Individual owners through fees and special assessments	Building owner
Reserve Funding	Paid by owners	Paid by owner
Roofs, Elevators, Garages	Owners ultimately pay	Owner pays
Monthly Fees	Increase as costs rise	Included within rent structure
Long-Term Risk	Shared among owners	Managed by building owner

The distinction is simple.

Someone always pays.

The question is who.

---

The Condo Myth

For decades Canadians have heard a familiar message:

"Buying is always better than renting."

The reality is more nuanced.

Buying a well-managed condominium with a healthy reserve fund may be an excellent long-term investment.

Buying into an aging building with inadequate reserves may expose owners to financial risks many renters never experience.

The question is not whether buying is always better than renting.

The real question is whether buyers fully understand what they are buying.

---

The Strategic Pivot Back to Rentals

Ironically, many developers are now shifting back toward purpose-built rental housing.

Why?

Because today's market conditions increasingly favour rental construction.

Developers no longer depend as heavily on achieving 70 to 80 percent condominium pre-sales before obtaining financing.

Government incentives for rental construction, including tax measures and accelerated approvals, have made rental projects increasingly attractive.

Institutional investors are also willing to finance buildings that generate stable, long-term rental income.

In many respects, the risk model has come full circle.

The building owner—not hundreds of individual households—once again assumes responsibility for major long-term repairs.

---

Before Buying a Condominium

Before signing a purchase agreement, every buyer should carefully examine the financial health of the condominium corporation—not just the appearance of the unit.

Key documents include:

• The Status Certificate
• The Reserve Fund Study
• Engineering reports
• Board meeting minutes
• Pending lawsuits
• Planned major repairs
• Historical special assessments
• Reserve fund funding ratios
• Trends in condominium fee increases

Pay particular attention to warning signs such as repeated special assessments, significant fee increases, deferred maintenance, frequent board turnover, or reserve funds that appear insufficient for future obligations.

The financial condition of the corporation may ultimately matter more than the granite countertops inside the unit.

---

A Question for Governments

Recent discussions about governments purchasing unsold condominium units from developers raise an important public policy question.

If taxpayers are expected to assume risks associated with unsold condominium inventory, should equal attention also be given to the long-term financial challenges already facing millions of existing condominium owners?

More broadly, should public policy encourage housing models that increasingly transfer long-term financial risks to individual households—or models that place those risks with professional owners better positioned to manage them?

These are legitimate questions deserving thoughtful public debate.

Conclusion

Condominiums have helped millions of Canadians achieve home ownership and will continue to play an important role in Canada's housing future.

It is a long-term legal and financial commitment to share the maintenance, governance, and liabilities of an entire building.

Home ownership should provide security, not unexpected financial shocks.

Before buying a condominium, prospective owners should look beyond granite countertops, designer kitchens, and attractive views.

The most important features of any condominium may be hidden inside its engineering reports, reserve fund study, and financial statements.

But every major financial decision deserves informed consent.

Buyers should understand not only the purchase price, but also the long-term responsibilities that come with ownership.

Whether purchasing a condominium, a detached home, or any other significant investment, the same principle applies: ask the difficult questions before signing, not after.

Because informed citizens make better decisions, stronger communities, and ultimately a more resilient country.

Knowledge costs little. Ignorance can cost a lifetime.