News   Jun 19, 2024
 9     0 
News   Jun 19, 2024
 1.2K     3 
News   Jun 19, 2024
 460     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Part of improving quality of life is actually implementing their climate plan. They have 80 billion dollars budgeted over ten years that should be helping to grow our economy.
They need to have a sense of urgency in implementing their clean investment tax credits. It is a major part of rebuilding our economy and creating good paying jobs.

As for polls? The Liberals were leading in the polls in June 2023, then the Bank of Canada started hiking interest rates again, and all the rats started to coming out.

The Liberals need to focus on the economy, and a major part of that is implementing their clean investment tax credits.

No, this isn't going to change anything materially. I think the pandemic showed that solving the climate problem is intractable, especially solving it before the worst impacts hit. If people can't mobilize to deal with an imminent threat, no chance it happens for something that is an undetermined point in the future with unknown impacts. It's horrible, since in reality, it's sentencing billions of people to death, but Europe (and America) will eventually spend trillions on building armed walls / borders to keep climate refugees out over any spending on actually solving the crisis, but you're not going to change human nature. Action will only be taken when people are sufficiently comfortable to not feel the impact of any extra money going towards mitigation, and that's not happening with the slow decline the west is experiencing now.

Also, tax credits and slightly better jobs aren't going to cut it. Right now, the problems are much more deep seated and emotional. People are angry that they can't afford to buy a house where their family or friends live, they're angry because they feel like they won't be able to provide the same life for their kids like they were provided by their parents, and a whole host of other things. You're not getting elected with, "here's a cheque for $200", or offering people some laughable retraining courses. Telling people with a smile on your face that the GDP going up, or some other metrics getting better is just going to get them angrier. To win in these times, you need to speak to peoples' fears, but the libs seem aloof and completely divorced from anything resembling reality.
 
Weird. It's almost like you don't understand statistics and why people don't see that as a huge risk. Half of bankruptcies being medical doesn't mean that half of all people who move to the US, or even half of all people in the US end their life bankrupt. Go ahead, calculate the actual probability of an individual experiencing bankruptcy in the US and then adjust for income level (just Canadian immigrants to the US have higher than average wages).

It's a risk and a trade-off like any other. Most people, especially young professionals that make the move, are extremely unlikely to suffer medical issues and conditions that are severe enough that they can't do their job, for example. If you have a medical condition that is easily managed with medication and check-ups, that's fine, but, anything requiring time off work, and you're in trouble.

Personally, I have two reasons which are higher up on the list for me for not making the move (and I had a chance several times where I would be paid more than double my existing salary).:
- guns. I can't imagine having my kids go through constant active shooter drills at school, and just be way more worried in general about any person on the street carrying a gun
- work life balance is worse in the states. I guess you have a higher chance at making a lot more money living in the states, but, to what end? You can't take it with you. Nobody wishes they spent more time working while on their death bed. Most things that will make you "rich" in the US will still give you a good life here.
 
s.No, this isn't going to change anything materially. I think the pandemic showed that solving the climate problem is intractable, especially solving it before the worst impacts hit. If people can't mobilize to deal with an imminent threat, no chance it happens for something that is an undetermined point in the future with unknown impacts. It's horrible, since in reality, it's sentencing billions of people to death, but Europe (and America) will eventually spend trillions on building armed walls / borders to keep climate refugees out over any spending on actually solving the crisis, but you're not going to change human nature. Action will only be taken when people are sufficiently comfortable to not feel the impact of any extra money going towards mitigation, and that's not happening with the slow decline the west is experiencing now.

Also, tax credits and slightly better jobs aren't going to cut it. Right now, the problems are much more deep seated and emotional. People are angry that they can't afford to buy a house where their family or friends live, they're angry because they feel like they won't be able to provide the same life for their kids like they were provided by their parents, and a whole host of other things. You're not getting elected with, "here's a cheque for $200", or offering people some laughable retraining courses. Telling people with a smile on your face that the GDP going up, or some other metrics getting better is just going to get them angrier. To win in these times, you need to speak to peoples' fears, but the libs seem aloof and completely divorced from anything resembling reality.
Housing is very important, so is the economy. The inflation reductions act is boosting the US economy, and without it Joe Biden would be losing badly to Donald Trump.
I cannot stress enough about the importance the clean investment tax credits is to the Canadian economy. Honda Canada wants to use one of the tax credits to build an
18 billion dollar EV plant in Ontario. That would be the largest investment in North American history, you see how important it is to implement these clean tax credits.
 
It's a risk and a trade-off like any other.

And one that way too many of our best and brightest are doing. The only reason you don't notice it more, is because the flood of immigrants replaces those who leave. But that's not exactly a recipe for prosperity.

Most people, especially young professionals that make the move, are extremely unlikely to suffer medical issues and conditions that are severe enough that they can't do their job, for example.

Tell that to the folks who these people are statistically illiterate. In the most extreme cases, they can do what all those Canadians of convenience in Lebanon or Palestine or Hong Kong do. Come back to Canada and have us pay the most expensive healthcare bills.

I can't imagine having my kids go through constant active shooter drills at school,

They don't have those here? My kids have had lockdowns and drills. Less common than the US. And far less worrisome. But also not zero.

But again, if this is a driver, you can do what a lot of these families do. Return to raise kids in Canada. By that point, they are already a decade ahead (economically) of their peers in Canada.

work life balance is worse in the states.

Very much debatable. While I was there on a military academic exchange and my wife was working, we really didn't find that. Leave entitlement and working hours were similar.

Arguably, this one is going out the window in Canada for younger Canadians. How many folks you know in their 30s? Multiple jobs is way too common. In the US, I've only seen this hustle in the most expensive cities (New York and SF). And when engineers are doing Uber or real estate on the side, to get ahead, we have a problem. And if they aren't doing multiple jobs, they are constantly job hopping in their careers, to try and get ahead, because that's the bare minimum to simply be able to own a home someday.

Why should we be worried about this? After all, most of our young people won't or can't (wouldn't qualify to) leave. If we replace a talented young Canadian with two immigrants with 50% of the wage potential, not only do average wages drop, but the tax base (thanks to progressivity) deteriorates, and demand for housing and social services goes up. All while they go on to make another country rich. Ultimately, the smartest folks leaving create shortages in professional labour and devastates the tax base the government relies on to give us all the social services we want. This is only going to make the young people left behind here, more angry and resentful. And we're going to see this reflected in our politics.
 
No, this isn't going to change anything materially. I think the pandemic showed that solving the climate problem is intractable, especially solving it before the worst impacts hit. If people can't mobilize to deal with an imminent threat, no chance it happens for something that is an undetermined point in the future with unknown impacts. It's horrible, since in reality, it's sentencing billions of people to death, but Europe (and America) will eventually spend trillions on building armed walls / borders to keep climate refugees out over any spending on actually solving the crisis, but you're not going to change human nature. Action will only be taken when people are sufficiently comfortable to not feel the impact of any extra money going towards mitigation, and that's not happening with the slow decline the west is experiencing now.

Fundamentally, Canadians don't have to care about climate change. That's the truth that nobody talks about. We live in one of the few countries that could potentially be a net beneficiary from climate change. We don't have to worry about mass migration. We don't have to worry about our agriculture getting devastated. They might end up with longer growing seasons! We don't really have to worry about any of our major cities getting flooded. Etc. All of this makes it hard to convince Canadians that climate is a major threat. Very different that say if you live in Europe or the coastal US. So climate action is seen as optional when times are good. That's said. But it's reality.

Also, tax credits and slightly better jobs aren't going to cut it. Right now, the problems are much more deep seated and emotional. People are angry that they can't afford to buy a house where their family or friends live, they're angry because they feel like they won't be able to provide the same life for their kids like they were provided by their parents, and a whole host of other things. You're not getting elected with, "here's a cheque for $200", or offering people some laughable retraining courses. Telling people with a smile on your face that the GDP going up, or some other metrics getting better is just going to get them angrier. To win in these times, you need to speak to peoples' fears, but the libs seem aloof and completely divorced from anything resembling reality.

The LPC Climate policy was one of the few competently executed bright spots and ultimately one of the policies easiest to undo. It gave provinces flexibility. And it rebated 90% of revenue in the backstop provinces. But unfortunately for them, it got put into place just as the worst of cost of living crisis since the 80s hit. In hindsight, the best climate policy would have been to do what BC and Quebec did. Implement carbon taxes and offset other taxes, so that the government is dependent on carbon tax revenue. Very hard to reverse. A $100/tonne carbon tax could completely replace the GST, for example. And it could be increased by $10/yr to overcome declining revenue. Future governments would have found this exceptionally difficult to reverse. The LPC were a bit too innocent to play the long game on this one. They thought sizeable rebates (my family is getting $800+ this year) that pay more than the carbon tax most pay would be enough. Unfortunately, it's easy to put up misinformation that conflates inflation with carbon pricing, that makes those cheques look inadequate.

Ultimately, as you point out, the best thing the Liberals could have done to build support for climate policy is address the most pressing concerns of Canadians. But 8 years in office and they didn't do much about housing while sending immigration rates to the moon.
 
We don't have to worry about our agriculture getting devastated.
I largely agree with most of what you say but there is much debate on this part. Climate (temperature, rainfall, etc.) are only part of it; suitable soil is the other part. Warmer temperatures might expand the crop range for places like the Ontario Clay Belt or the Peace Valley areas, but you're not going to turn the Shield or Boreal areas into significant agricultural zones. What limited soil exists is far too acidic except in small pockets. Even now, parts of the Palliser's Triangle in the prairies dances on the limits of being arable.
 
I largely agree with most of what you say but there is much debate on this part. Climate (temperature, rainfall, etc.) are only part of it; suitable soil is the other part. Warmer temperatures might expand the crop range for places like the Ontario Clay Belt or the Peace Valley areas, but you're not going to turn the Shield or Boreal areas into significant agricultural zones. What limited soil exists is far too acidic except in small pockets. Even now, parts of the Palliser's Triangle in the prairies dances on the limits of being arable.
Agreed. There's debate on how much agriculture can expand. But unlike some places in the world, we're not really at risk of being unable to feed ourselves. There's a long list of countries ahead of us on that list.
 
Weird. It's almost like you don't understand statistics and why people don't see that as a huge risk. Half of bankruptcies being medical doesn't mean that half of all people who move to the US, or even half of all people in the US end their life bankrupt. Go ahead, calculate the actual probability of an individual experiencing bankruptcy in the US and then adjust for income level (just Canadian immigrants to the US have higher than average wages).
Maybe let the American Public Journal of Health know that they are wrong that medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class. Im sure they’d love to have your expertise.
 
Maybe let the American Public Journal of Health know that they are wrong that medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class. Im sure they’d love to have your expertise.

Did the American Public Journal of Health say "medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class" or are you editorializing? Please link the exact article where this was said. I would genuinely like to read this.

And as already discussed here, somebody who is likely to move is a bit more than average.... Are you suggesting that all the folks who leave are incapable of understanding self-interest?
 
Great video. Won't do squat to really change opinions. At the end of the day, there's only one number that matters to most voters. That's what's left in the bank at the end of the month after every they've paid for rent, utilities, food, gas, etc.

Just remember, Canadians don't vote in new governments. They vote out stale ones. The election question is going to be, "Are you better off than 2015?". And for a lot of people the answer will be, "No.". Or at least their perception of the situation.

The LPC can improve things. They've decided not to. They kind of sealed their fate when they decided on tepid immigration cuts over 3 years.
 
Maybe let the American Public Journal of Health know that they are wrong that medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class. Im sure they’d love to have your expertise.

Did the American Public Journal of Health say "medical debt is likely to be the downfall of the middle class" or are you editorializing? Please link the exact article where this was said. I would genuinely like to read this.

Still waiting for that link.
 

Hmm, I think the piece starts off well enough............

But it suggests wiping out rental accommodation for thousands in favour of single-family home ownership. I can't agree to that, unless those renters are being removed from the country or purpose-built housing for them is being delivered.

As written the piece advocates for increased homelessness and extreme poverty and higher rents. I know Mike and I don't believe he meant to suggest this, or that a detailed paper of his would; but an edited column leaves that impression.

I'm also disinclined to support 30 and 35 year amortizations. In such scenarios, you'll actually pay the bank three times over for your property.

Finally, I would say, the suggestion of incentivizing through lower capital gains tax, returning a property from lower-income needs to higher income needs is not only bad policy but terrible politics.

If you're going to do that, instead of using incentives you use legal fiat.

Outlaw short-term rentals (Air bnb etc) entirely; apply a higher capital gains rate to any property renting any SFH to 3 or more renters. (ie. more than one per floor). No giveaways to those who have engaged in exploitive behavior, just penalties. Change now, or else.
 
As written the piece advocates for increased homelessness and extreme poverty and higher rents.

As they explain in the article, to avoid this the government has to make steep cuts to student immigration so that demand is cut to match this reduction in rental supply.

I'm also disinclined to support 30 and 35 year amortizations. In such scenarios, you'll actually pay the bank three times over for your property.

As they explained in the article, this is the only way to put young people in a position where they can compete with investors and older homeowners with capital. And they point out that longer amortizations should be reserved exclusively for the young who will see their incomes rising (which will allow them to pay down in the future).

I would say, the suggestion of incentivizing through lower capital gains tax, returning a property from lower-income needs to higher income needs is not only bad policy but terrible politics.

At they point out, this has to be a one time thing and it's mostly about creating liquidity in the market by incentivizing student slumlords to sell their homes to buyers who actually want to live in the homes as their primary residence. That's not a policy that has to endure beyond the demand shock being implemented.

Outlaw short-term rentals (Air bnb etc) entirely; apply a higher capital gains rate to any property renting any SFH to 3 or more renters. (ie. more than one per floor). No giveaways to those who have engaged in exploitive behavior, just penalties. Change now, or else.

These are all band aid solutions. And as they point out, none of these other ideas act in a timeframe relevant to young people looking at the crisis as acute or the party in power looking at a collapse in support. Moreover, who is going to even enforce rules like different cap gains rates based on number of renters? We barely enforce some rules against flippers now and every neighbourhood beside a college or university is becoming a slum with 10+ students in a house.

This viewpoint is fundamentally part of the problem. Older people who are secure in their homes still think this is a policy problem to finesse. Meanwhile, young people literally see this crisis as a threat to their well-being. We' ve veered so far off the road, that the only thing that will work now, is a sharp course correction, with a snap of the steering wheel. Not some tweaking that might deliver results 15-20 years from now.
 

Back
Top