As a Canadian - south of the border terrifies me for what's coming next. Republicans have devolved into a NK style 'dear leader' group that is terrified of crossing Trump. 1930's Germany is here
Keep in mind that many so-called "Americans" you see online are thousands of miles from the US, and are paid or otherwise encouraged to pretend otherwise.
A lot of them are just doing this for free, and got got too by the insane propaganda apparatus in service of the GOP, that converted so many Americans into defending straight up murder and pedophilia.
It's known to be true. Witness what happened when Xitter turned on a country-of-origin indication briefly, realized what it was saying about their audience, and then turned it back off in a hurry.
It really is sadism, the punitive urge. I'm noticing relatives of mine hesitate to condemn what's happening, and I know that same hesitation from their righteous anger in exacting authoritarian attitudes about other more mundane things. The difference here now is that we're talking about an authoritarian takeover of the government.
On the plus side: Hitler was younger when he came to power. Trump is not long for this world. That doesn't mean that things will get better afterwards, they might, they might now. But we're dangerously close to the edge now.
Just count yourself lucky you don’t live here. Though I wouldn’t put it past Trump to invade Canada at some point but that will likely only happen if he assumes a dictatorship.
Yes, two of my siblings are European citizens. It's staggering how much richer US feels. Many Europeans are fed daily propaganda and thus are in denial/ideological hatred. I implore Europeans especially the ones in technology to skip over anti-capitalist and anti-American propaganda widespread in Europe (e.g. you'll hear shootings every day; you'll be BK and die on the street if you get cancer) and seriously explore opportunities in the US. They can be multiple times wealthier, not just some measly percentages.
This is the classic american take, look at how much more money you could have.
To most europeans there are more important things than money, especially those working in tech who likely earn enough to have a great quality of life. Also lots of them have been to the US and made their own minds up.
Yes most of the population does not enjoy that benefit. I understand you only care for yourself, so yes please enjoy the current system that benefits you. Maybe we can a country just for you and send you there.
No chance this crushes the 'bubble'. Record immigration, developers have greatly reduced housing starts, and people will do anything to keep their mortgage as asset prices continue to rise.
There's no political will at any level (muni, provincial, federal) to build housing, remove zoning, to reduce immigration to reasonable levels, and it's starting to feel hopeless.
Average rent for a 1br in Vancouver is $2250 - an individual following the 30% rule needs to make 90K/year to justify that. The system is broken and we'll continue to hear platitudes from the government, and that goes for both the Libs and the Cons.
Every time I hear the Canadian government responding to this housing crisis... the only thing they do is pass policies that enable people to buy even "more" expensive houses.
For example, their big move last year was to let people sock another $8000 away to put towards a house tax free while at the same time increasing immigration to eye popping levels. Another thing to note with Canadian immigrant strategies, these numbers often don't include "temporary" students and others which use the program "on mass" to immigrate into Canada if they didn't succeed through other means.
An immigration explosion is typically excellent but it must be matched with housing development growth and Canada is literally doing the opposite... mind boggling.
What should the Canadian federal government do? Housing is a provincial and municipal responsibility. They're the ones that set zoning and housing regulations.
Yep. I didn't read the Wikipedia article, but, AFAIK, there used to be more non-market or co-op housing in Canada where the cost of rent, etc. was tied to the actual costs instead of what the market will bear. That acted as a check on runaway greed since it gave people a good comparable (at least for rent) that was based on fair value rather than maximizing profit.
This is only arguably true because Jean Chretien decided to completely disengage and walk away in 1993 to solve his budget problems.
Prior to this the Federal government was deeply, deeply involved in housing in this country, both literally building social housing and also incentivizing both social, coop and market housing through huge amounts of tax expenditure.
Accordingly there was an enormous amount of apartment development through the 60s/70s when the government was most involved in incentivizing housing, and then as investment was cut down, it eroded all the way to nothing.
There is no single silver bullet to our housing problems, but honestly if we had to look for one, some single thing that had the biggest contribution, it probably would be that 1993 budget.
They could at the very least not import 1M a people a year (many of whom come here to study at diploma mills that result in no real career skills and considerable debt) at a 38M population, and limit corporations and non-citizens from buying property.
It's on the provinces to get rid of zoning and speed up development of new housing starts, but the Feds are pouring gasoline onto a house on fire with no regard for the rest of us. We wouldn't have such a significantly declining birthrate if people could afford to have children of their own in Canada.
AFAICT, that's double counting. IOW, a significant portion of non-permanent residents eventually become permanent residents, and get counted when they become permanent residents.
For example one of the biggest costs on apartment builders that dissuades them from building apartments is the HST. Developers are constantly saying this makes their projects unviable and kills them.
The Federal government could waive the HST tomorrow and massively incentivize apartment development.
The Liberals even promised to do this in past campaigns, then reneged on this.
In the past when apartments were being built rapidly it was aided by enormous tax expenditure from the federal government.
If it was a condo development being sold, then yes the end buyer of the condo would pay, but if it's a purpose built rental, then the builder has to pay the tax.
> Residential builders sometimes face unexpected GST/HST liability due to the self-supply rules in Canada's Excise Tax Act. In effect, the self-supply rules deem a builder to have sold to itself a residential property at fair market value if the builder constructed or substantially renovated that property and then either rented it out or personally occupied it.
In effect this makes purpose built rental (PBR) dramatically less viable than condo development and a core reason why builders basically stopped building PBR entirely.
Setting aside the discussion around whether PBR or condo is better to build etc, the core point here is while yes, housing is a provincial responsibility, the Federal government's taxation policies have a dramatic impact on the sort of housing that is built in this country.
I don't quite get this argument. I can kind of see it, but isn't the total cost of the property the same whether or not it's sold to an end buyer or purpose built as a rental?
For example, if you have 2 condos that worth $100k, an end buyer pays $105k after GST and a corporation building a rental pays $105k. I don't see how that's unfair unless the corporation is looking for a sneaky way to have the government subsidizing their business.
How would that be fair to me if I was the end buyer purchasing a condo as a rental property? Should I get a rebate for the GST to keep it fair?
That said, I think there should be a total ban on corporate owned residential property. Eventually we'll all be renting from private equity firms if we let the current trends continue.
Not going to get into the discussion of PBR vs condo and why you'd want to do either, but I'll elaborate more on how the taxation makes PBR unviable.
The difference between these two scenarios is in the financing, and financing is critical in the entire viability of the project.
In the Purpose Built Rental scenario the builder has to pay lets say 12% for each of these 100k condos in a 125 unit building, which ultimately results in the building costing an additional $1.5M to build. They need to find that money or find financing for that money.
In the condo example the building is $1.5M cheaper to build as they do not need to find that money, they simply sell all the condos and the buyer pays.
It's easier to get financing for a smaller amount of money, and so the condo becomes more viable and more likely to be built.
Now 1.5M maybe doesn't sound like a big deal, but from my understanding of the development industry all this really matters and adds up.
We've seen in Canada the entire market for PBR pretty much disappear and be entirely taken over by condos so this is not really any sort of debate. The development industry has talked about this a lot.
The core underlying point is though then that if there is political desire to build more PBR than condos, it's not just a provincial issue, since the fundamental taxation difference is an important part of the underlying incentives that drive people to make different sorts of housing tenure types, and this is a federal issue.
This is just one example. There's all sorts of ability for the federal government to change incentives via taxation.
(in the past one of the biggest reasons why so many apartments were built was all sorts of other capital gains tax benefits around apartment development which no longer exist)
> I don't see how that's unfair unless the corporation is looking for a sneaky way to have the government subsidizing their business.
It isn’t about fairness or not, it is just an explanation as to why everyone is building condos rather than apartments, which really sucks because instead of renting from a large landlord that has actual experience and staff, you end up renting from some dentist turned real estate “investor” who is magically on vacation when there’s a leak in the unit and doesn’t pick up the phone after 8pm. Clearly there is a place in the market for both types of landlords but the HST structure disincentivizes one type of landlord from existing.
> How would that be fair to me if I was the end buyer purchasing a condo as a rental property? Should I get a rebate for the GST to keep it fair?
This might be one solution, or go the other way and disallow condo developers from claiming the ITCs.
"We will give any municipality that fills out this form $23,800,042 to build affordable housing; each 2 bedroom apartment must be sold for $123,456 and cannot be sold above $234,568 for the next 15 years."
It's silly to pretend that large-scale homebuilding isn't being done with profits that only incentivise restricted volumes of building. Federal or state building could rectify supply and stabilise prices.
That said, it's decades too late. We're at the top of a tall, steep hill. As soon as enough people start walking away from their mortgaged homes because they can't afford repayments —which will happen with base rates so high— the market will crash.
I think there's a good chance investment firms buy up everything. If people are walking away from their mortgages that means the properties can likely be bought below market rates, especially if they can do bulk or quick deals with banks.
As supply consolidates the market rates will keep going up, so the smart choice for anyone with a huge investment in the market is to just keep buying until they own everything, right? Don't let the market crash. Instead, prop it up until you own so much of it that you effectively make the rules and set the market rates.
Investment firms are already facing massive holes in their books as office space around the world goes unlet and devalues.
In my area we're already seeing people trying (and failing) to sell at reasonable prices. The average mortgage repayments are set to rise by £6kpa. It won't be afforded for long.
Yes, I'm sure someone will clean up, but it won't buoy prices and it'll only make the long term picture worse.
Indeed, it's a terrible situation. If it does not crush the bubble, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. At higher interest rates, shelter becomes an ever increasing component of core CPI growth. There's about another year remaining before this feedback loop makes itself impossible to ignore. Otherwise, non-shelter prices will have to drop quite significantly for inflation to moderate with such pressing increases in rents and mortgage interest. But that would be indicative of a recession, which would put many mortgages in jeopardy. It could also lead to a populist anti-immigrant backlash, which might reverse the only bullish fundamentals for housing.
> There's no political will at any level (muni, provincial, federal) to build housing, remove zoning, to reduce immigration
I see at least one level that sure gives the impression they want, and are subsequently demanding, more housing. I'll give you the fact that it's neither Libs nor Cons though.
This would help housing prices but otherwise crush GDP growth. The problem is that there are no good answers now and governments are really bad at choosing from terrible options so they’ll just find a way to kick the can down the road and make it 10x larger, which is why we are in this place to begin with.
> There's no political will at any level (muni, provincial, federal) to build housing, remove zoning, to reduce immigration to reasonable levels, and it's starting to feel hopeless.
Ford seems pretty serious about it in Ontario, freeing up new development land, banning municipalities from holding developers hostage until they pay random art contribution fees and other pet project fees, gutting heritage group powers and other NIMBY bullshit, and granting strong mayor powers. I don’t like the man’s politics generally but I do feel like he is most serious about the housing crisis.
As with many western countries, there's a rising sentiment against immigration due to the lack of infrastructure provided to the existing citizenry. Housing in Canada is some of the least affordable in the world, our health care system is deeply underfunded, competition for spots at post secondary is rising as the institutions accept more international students as they're cash cows, and we're slowly seeing a rise in populism with the the Conservative Party electing Pierre Poilievre who is a Trump-lite figure who rails on about being for the working class while simultaneously voting against dental coverage for poor children [1].
It genuinely feels like the political class has abandoned its people and has sold out to special interest groups entirely. We import tons of TFW's (temporary foreign workers) to appease the corps to have cheap labour, and these TFW's are often treated terribly by the corps. As a first generation Canadian who is the child of refugees, I really do worry about the future of this country. I know tons of couples who are putting off having kids entirely because of the bleak economic picture in our major cities. We need immigration due to the low birthrate, but there's significant resentment from those who want kids and simply cannot afford them which is pushing down our numbers further.
Well said. Too much of the debate on here is around logical fallacies rather than the direct impact this will have on women - particularly those who are poor and unable to travel for safe abortions in other states.
Banning abortion only makes access to safe abortions harder - if the right wing want to reduce abortions, making contraceptives freely available has been proven to dramatically reduce the abortion rate as evidenced in Colorado[1].
“If you really want to reduce murders, you can’t outlaw it, that just lets rich people murder. Instead, you make guns and other self protection widely available”
To anyone who is convinced abortion is baby murder, this is what you just said. This argument only ever makes sense if you treat the fetus like a non entity and believe the opposition to abortion is purely hatred of female autonomy. The vast majority of Americans in favor of some abortion restrictions (which 75% of Americans are) have that opinion not because of the above but because they believe that fetus becomes a person at some point between conception and birth.
Except that contraception prevents conception from ever occurring? Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, and there's no point in arguing in good faith with people who equate contraception to murder.
You said:
1. Outlawing abortion isn’t helpful at all
2. Actually helpful would be contraceptives
I (and the vast majority of people) agree that contraception is important and should be widely available. You’re argument against abortion restrictions is completely incorrect though and that’s the point I made
King is literally a founding convoy organizer who calls the shots and has a massive following and influence on the convoy members. His videos get 100's of thousands of views and he influenced the convoy 'manifesto' that they created to try to overthrow the government. Your comment shows you have done zero research into the matter. He's a vocal white supremacist who believes Islam has taken over the government to kill white bloodlines. You can find many videos of him saying this to be broadcast to his following.
I don't doubt he's crazy, I do doubt his crazier views represent those of protesters more broadly. But in whichever case, the administration could take the wind out of his sails by yielding--no need to organize under King if the goal is accomplished. If the government didn't take an authoritarian stance in the first place, King would be marginal.
As a Canadian I humbly request Americans stay out of our politics, particularly when it comes to influencing them via monetary donations. Get your own house in order, don't encourage wannabe insurrectionists who had a manifesto to take over the government in blatantly undemocratic ways.
That is ironic coming from a Canadian. Just recently, a lot of money poured in from Canada to support the farmer protest in India. Here is one example: https://www.gofundme.com/f/donatetofarmers
PS: Not that I support the current Canadian protests.
As an Indian, this double standard was the most amusing thing for me in all these. When farmers in India protested, Canadian PM himself supported them (probably because he wanted the Sikh community votes?).
Indian government only used police officers with batons and were sometimes chased away by the protesters.
As a matter of principle I agree with you, however there is also a large Indian diaspora in Canada and it's quite possible most of that money was donated by Indians; it doesn't make a lot of sense for a Canadian living in the US to donate the money from a US account though.
Especially since some of these protestors are rumored to have backing of Khalistani separatists who have blown up an Air India flight in the past killing 329 people.
While I have not donated anything to this cause, as an American I fundamentally reject your humble request.
The reality is that while in this moment you are against it, the second a protest is in your favor, I'm willing to bet you will turn a blind eye. Nearly all international charities are a form of foreign influence whether you agree with them or not, and your politicians are the ones happy to allow these charities to operate within your nation.
If I support a cause within Canada and truly wish it the best, then I will donate to it, just like everyone else in the world already is. I do not support hypocrisy.
The U.S.A., and previously Great Britain, has always had an enormous political and economic influence on Canada, for better or for worse. Today we are being noticed in the U.S.A. because we're struggling. Having worked and traveled internationally for many years it is my opinion that at most times we, as a sovereign nation, rarely even occur to American minds. Such is life, and I'm okay with it.
I've run ads on FB before, but this is an incredibly simple article to share with my non-technically minded friends and family as to why these services collect too much data. We need more of these simple and concise posts to share outside of the tech-bubble we live in.
Medical professionals are often taught these days that aspiration is not necessary for IM injections, particularly in commonly used sites such as the delts.
From the CDC [1]: Aspiration before injection of vaccines or toxoids (i.e., pulling back on the syringe plunger after needle insertion but before injection) is not necessary because no large blood vessels are present at the recommended injection sites
This lines up exactly with what Dr. Daniel Griffin talked about in the most recent clinical update podcast for TWIV [1]. Apparently aspirating makes the shot more painful, because the needle is in the body longer, and serves no benefit as long as the vaccinator is putting it in the right location.
"no large blood vessels are present at the recommended injection sites"
That's a bold statement. Sure, no large blood vessels may be present at the recommended injection site on an average human, but it's well known there is more divergence in anatomy than they necessarily teach about in primary school, and vaccines are supposed to go in basically everyone.
Your first class may not teach this, but you'd get to it eventually if you kept taking classes. (Then again, your first class may at least mention this sort of thing at some point.) What the "average human" is is not what all humans are. There's all sorts of things like, the stuff in that link, major nerve clusters having additional or missing separations, extra separated or fused bones, major veins and arteries not being quite in the usual location... look close enough and you'll find something on everybody that doesn't match the "standard human anatomy".
