|
linoleum floors posted:Haha, but seriously folks, gently caress small towns right up the rear end. Those fuckers are always asking for handouts for things like roads and water. Get with the goddamn times!!! 
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
No, we've hosed over natives enough. It's appropriate for their lifestyle choice to be subsidized by Canada. "I want to have a lake view", "I don't like to see my neighbors", "non-white people are icky", or "I want a 5 acre lot" aren't appropriate luxuries to support as a matter of policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
The sooner we stop subsidizing air Canada to fly to poo poo holes in Nunavut the sooner we can open up Canadian airspace to other airlines and gently caress ac right in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Are you having a stroke? do u know what a primary industry is lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:If even 10% of Canada's towns under 50K people are dominated by agriculture, I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice. According to statistics Canada Canadian farmers made up 10.3% of the total rural population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:According to statistics Canada Canadian farmers made up 10.3% of the total rural population. Yes, so it's very unlikely that they dominate 10% of towns, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Yes, so it's very unlikely that they dominate 10% of towns, I think. hello, think mcfly, think
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Well presumably those farmers need the same services as everyone else. Or do you demand that farming towns should not have gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:No, we've hosed over natives enough. It's appropriate for their lifestyle choice to be subsidized by Canada. "I want to have a lake view", "I don't like to see my neighbors", "non-white people are icky", or "I want a 5 acre lot" aren't appropriate luxuries to support as a matter of policy. So progressive
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Can't prove any of what? Fewer than 300K people work in agriculture in Canada (including corporate workers in big cities). In 2011 the rural population was 6M, where "rural" means in cities <1K people *and* lower density than 400 ppl/sqkm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well presumably those farmers need the same services as everyone else. Or do you demand that farming towns should not have gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc.? No, I think they can have all those things, as can any town. I think they should be carried by the residents, and not subsidized by everyone else. A farming town has a local industry, it can have civic services proportional to its size and whatever secondary industries (movie theatres, bookstores, restaurants) can be economically supported. But again, farming is a small minority of rural population. It's only the topic right now because My Food Security is being used as a blanket justification for subsidizing people's choice to live where it's more expensive to deliver them civic services.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:So progressive Is "I want an inground pool" something that should be subsidized too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Is "I want an inground pool" something that should be subsidized too? Why would I need a pool when I have the lake right there??
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
You're arguing by picking the low hanging fruit and ignoring the broader philosophical discussion about what the real purpose of the economy is. I'd like to think it's about maximizing people's choices and happiness to the great degree possible, within limits set by the inherent trade-offs of resource scarcity. By contrast, some people, whatever they might claim, seem to view the economy as basically being a way to distribute punishment to the unworthy. Besides which, everyone in this economy subsidizes everyone else because it takes a huge collective effort too produce and reproduce our civilization. Even people who don't directly contribute to our tax base may be raising parents, supporting an elder, working on an artistic project that others will eventually enjoy, etc. Our material living standards are threatened by the extreme concentration of economic wealth at the top of society, not the lives of ordinary people living in rural communities. This incredibly petty crab bucket mentality you're promoting is counter productive and frankly quite ugly. We should be focusing on the people who are actually harming us -- i.e. our politicians, the media, large corporations and the people who own them. Obviously I don't know you or your exact story but right now you come off to me like the progressive equivalent of some blue collar white working stiff who is angry at people on welfare instead of the boss who just relocated the factory to another country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Obviously I don't know you or your exact story but right now you come off to me like the progressive equivalent of some blue collar white working stiff who is angry at people on welfare instead of the boss who just relocated the factory to another country. You...are not right. I'm not angry at people on welfare, though. I just don't think it's a fundamental right to live wherever you want, and that like other luxuries you should pick up the tab for it as the person who benefits. I also don't think we should subsidize inground pools or mortgages or private car ownership or film production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I'm not angry at people on welfare, though. I just don't think it's a fundamental right to live wherever you want, and that like other luxuries you should pick up the tab for it as the person who benefits. I also don't think we should subsidize inground pools or mortgages or private car ownership or film production. Under your system, do I get to stop subsidizing the hospital bills of fat people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
No, I don't think health care is comparable to choosing the neighborhood you live in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're arguing by picking the low hanging fruit and ignoring the broader philosophical discussion about what the real purpose of the economy is. I'd like to think it's about maximizing people's choices and happiness to the great degree possible, within limits set by the inherent trade-offs of resource scarcity. By contrast, some people, whatever they might claim, seem to view the economy as basically being a way to distribute punishment to the unworthy. If we want to take the historical perspective, rural Canada subsidized the growth of our urban and suburban communities for... well decades if not over a century. Farmers were taxed to hell so we could build road and services for the suburban developments, who hold the first place prize for "most unsustainable form of living in Canada." There has been a slow but steady depopulation of rural Canada, so everyone who despises rural living will get their wish in the end, anyway. Just be patient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Suburbs may be even worse, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:You...are not right. Nothing is a fundamental right because rights are political constructs. The point is that we have more than enough resources to help people live in rural communities without it impacting the standard of living enjoyed by us city slickers. Our politicians and corporations are the ones screwing us, not another family of working stiffs who just happen to have the ambition to live next to a lake instead of a skyscraper. But instead of engaging with that reality you're doing the typical crab bucket maneuver of fixating on people from the tribe that you don't like. Upthread you posted a very interesting article about how German regulators actively try to bring down the cost of housing to ensure it remains affordable. Personally I think that is a fantastic policy and I wish we had something like that in Canada. Based on what you're posting here though, I assume you would condemn it as a wasteful misuses of taxpayer resources. After all the Germans are taxing hard working people like yourself and handing that money to a government bureaucrat whose entire job is just to make it easier for some bozo to buy a house. How's that really different than subsidizing someone's mortgage or pool? I can't really see any logic in the things you want to subsidize (native reserves, healthcare for fatsos, welfare for the pooor) vs. the things you don't, other than petty progressive tribalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Pretty certain most farming is done on industrial and large factory farms. The romanticized idea of the family farm is all but a memory. Also I'm not sure what a pre-automobile centric small town would be other than the exact same thing but with horses and wagons. It's not like people used to live in high density wooden condos before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
You monsters without all those small rural towns you couldn't have good meth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Nothing is a fundamental right because rights are political constructs. The point is that we have more than enough resources to help people live in rural communities without it impacting the standard of living enjoyed by us city slickers. Our politicians and corporations are the ones screwing us, not another family of working stiffs who just happen to have the ambition to live next to a lake instead of a skyscraper. But instead of engaging with that reality you're doing the typical crab bucket maneuver of fixating on people from the tribe that you don't like. There may not be logic to it! I lived in semi-rural Ontario when I was growing up, and have many friends and relations who live in small towns or unincorporated areas. I enjoy visiting them, it is nice out there. I do not begrudge them any happiness, and I don't feel threatened by their successes. I think it is perfectly reasonable and moral to want to live in a small town, or to want a large lot for a garden, or a pool. I don't think we should discourage those practices. We do as a society have the money to buy people pools, but for whatever reason I don't think of "having a pool" as being part of the social contract they way "have healthcare" or "avoid starving" are. I also don't think "I would rather live in neighbourhood A than neighbourhood B" is part of the social contract. Maybe I'm merely not ambitious enough, and should be looking much more broadly at quality of life choices that we can help each other with. Decentralized living also has resource and environmental impact that can't be really wiped out by the tax base, unfortunately. Nor can we necessarily spend our way out of doctor shortages. I think the German thing is fine, but I'm ok with regulation of provision of essential things like housing. I think the best part of the article is the rent laws, honestly. We made a big mistake when we stopped seeing a building as housing and started seeing it as an investment you sleep in. I don't mind money being spent on the public service either; there are inefficiencies, but compared to the military or taxing capital gains at a lower rate than income (I mean Jesus), they're no big deal. I'm on the board of a public college, and I spent years working for a non profit. I believe in the commons. I don't think it's right to treat "live in small town" as a special class of preference when it comes to housing, is all. By all means let's agree that we're going to share the costs of each other's housing preferences, with our eyes open; I don't think that's the general agreement among Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:I put some thought into things and hit upon a way to reverse rural decline and ease the pressure on cities: Film and gaming gets its tax credits through emotional appeals and hand-wringing about cultural value, something which less "sexy" industries can't use to drum up gov't support. Those industries are already huge drains on provincial budgets, and if you tried to do that for even more industries the provinces would be even more broke. Plus your industry then becomes hooked on the subsidies and getting off of them kills the industry and causes massive relocation/disruption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:There may not be logic to it! I lived in semi-rural Ontario when I was growing up, and have many friends and relations who live in small towns or unincorporated areas. I enjoy visiting them, it is nice out there. I do not begrudge them any happiness, and I don't feel threatened by their successes. I think it is perfectly reasonable and moral to want to live in a small town, or to want a large lot for a garden, or a pool. I don't think we should discourage those practices. We do as a society have the money to buy people pools, but for whatever reason I don't think of "having a pool" as being part of the social contract they way "have healthcare" or "avoid starving" are. I also don't think "I would rather live in neighbourhood A than neighbourhood B" is part of the social contract. Maybe I'm merely not ambitious enough, and should be looking much more broadly at quality of life choices that we can help each other with. Decentralized living also has resource and environmental impact that can't be really wiped out by the tax base, unfortunately. Nor can we necessarily spend our way out of doctor shortages. Well I do have a tendency to think big. It may be that in the immediate context we don't fully disagree. For instance, if I were forced to choose between building more infrastructure for small towns or developing a national plan for socialized dentistry, optometry or mental health care, then I would certainly prioritize the latter issues. I just happen to think that there's no fundamental resource constraints that would stop us from helping people live in small towns. It shouldn't necessarily be out immediate priority but it's exactly the kind of thing we should be thinking and talking about. I believe that the left has suffered a great deal by being forced to play on the ideological terms of the neoliberals / neoconservatives. So I try to encourage people to change how they think about the economy and to emphasize the extent to which our society is already wealthy enough to give us a great deal more freedom to determine our life circumstances and conditions. cowofwar posted:Pretty certain most farming is done on industrial and large factory farms. The romanticized idea of the family farm is all but a memory. This blog gives a pretty good overview of a pre-WWII town, including lots of pictures. The short answer to your question would be a main street with multi-story buildings that have businesses on the ground floor and cheap apartments on the upper floors. This relatively dense core is surrounded by layers of duplexes and rowhouses, and then detatched houses on the outter edges. For many, if not most of the residents, the overall community is thus accessible by walking or cycling. Ideally there are also rail links to larger urban centres. Unfortunately when many people think of rural living they just imagine suburbs, which are indeed massively inefficient and which don't even have the merit of promoting any kind of community life. But if you look at the handful of pre-WWII towns or at various towns in Europe then you can get a better sense of what is possible. Dreylad posted:If we want to take the historical perspective, rural Canada subsidized the growth of our urban and suburban communities for... well decades if not over a century. Farmers were taxed to hell so we could build road and services for the suburban developments, who hold the first place prize for "most unsustainable form of living in Canada." For that matter anyone here who has used our socialized healthcare system owes a debt of gratitude to some uppity farmers out west who had this crazy idea that people should be entitled to subsidized healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Rime posted:I put some thought into things and hit upon a way to reverse rural decline and ease the pressure on cities: Why is it a goal to reverse rural decline? Very few of Canada's cities are under population pressure -- maybe 10. There are many cities who would be happy to grow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
It is, in fact, a right in Canada to live wherever you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
peter banana posted:It is, in fact, a right in Canada to live wherever you want. By which you mean "in the province of your choice", per the Charter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real...e55e48c5d5c?utm loving lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:By which you mean "in the province of your choice", per the Charter? That's the wording of section 6, but I think it generally refers to freedom of movement overall as well.I'm just saying, if people are saying you don't have a right to live rurally, that doesn't seem necessarily true nor should it be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
peter banana posted:That's the wording of section 6, but I think it generally refers to freedom of movement overall as well. I can't find an interpretation to that effect in quick searching or reading the cases referenced from the Wikipedia page at least. Do you have a reference to a case or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
It's the australian version of the bro real estate agents from The Big Short movie. Also lolling how his whole wealth is built on a single sector of the economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
So, 50 million in real estate and 50 million in debt, is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
A pretty good analysis of what's really going on with Vancouver's real estate market.quote:Vancouver: not mind-numbingly boring, but vacuously vain
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
How much Vancouver real estate is foreign owned? 20%? 30%?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Nobody knows because, much like the rest of the Chinese economy, Vancouver's housing market is very opaque and filled with unreliable data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Then how are people determining its effects? It seems well-established that it's a big problem, but I can't tell how it's known.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Then how are people determining its effects? It seems well-established that it's a big problem, but I can't tell how it's known. anecdata! i just moved but up until a couple months ago i lived in a 96 unit high rise in the vancouver suburb of richmond. of the approximately 120 parking spaces in the garage i never saw more than 40 cars at a time and at least five of the eight units on my floor were vacant as far as i could tell. the building was, generously, 50% empty. you hear the same story from owners of many condos in the city, particularly newer ones in vancouver and richmond
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Then how are people determining its effects? It seems well-established that it's a big problem, but I can't tell how it's known. They go through recent transactions in the land registry and looks for names that sound chinese or something. It seems a little sketchy. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouvers-housing-market-fuelled-by-chinese-buyers-study/article27064577/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
i posted this before but it's pretty telling about what's going on in the vancouver real estate market: https://storify.com/karamcnair/sandy-garossino-breaks-down-the-province-article-a http://www.theprovince.com/business/follow+money+vancouver+real+estate+market+concerns+spring/11683456/story.html?rel=838332
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:21
|
|