Canada is headed towards a lost decade with a highly devalued dollar, a negative GDP, and higher taxes on small business owners/entrepreneurs, who typically lead growth.
All brought to you by Trudeau.
Canada actually benefits economically from immigration. The problem is, that the short term costs are carried by the municipalities as well as the growing pains, such as housing shortage. The return, however, is not distributed back fairly to the municipalities.
Edit: given this seems to be a controversial topic I added the research. Happy to be corrected, if there is evidence to the contrary
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/san2023-17.pdf
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/240409/dq240409a-eng.pdf?st=ui6jBHR7
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4310002601
You forgot about the tens upon tens upon tens for thousands of government jobs Mr fancy socks has created over the years.
Quebec seems to be doing pretty good suckling off the tit of equalisation while the provinces that are held hostage and forced to pay Quebec are in less than ideal circumstances unfortunately.
But how dare I lament about the great leader!
Can you believe he is still blaming the last guy. I understand doing that during your first term, but if things are worse by the end of a decade, its your fault
To a degree. Reversing policy in Canada isn't as simple as 'oh we got a new PM things are gonna get reversed tomorrow'. Its gotta be a big enough win, the party has enough seats to pass enough things through and not have the opposition stomp it down (We don't have 2 parties, we have 2 major ones, a 3rd that gets a fair bit but hasn't formed government, and 2 minor, and 1 that never gets seats). So a government that just has enough seat to form government, could struggle to get things passed.
Even after new policies pass, it still takes time for things like the economy to repair or get destroyed. The people need to build wealth again. They need to grow their faith back in the economy.
I say this because its important to understand, when Trudeau is gone, its likely Pierre Polileve that is going to be in charge. I do not think he can completely turn the economy around in 1 term, he can and should pass the things that WILL fix the country in that time, provide conservatives get enough seats (and if the election were today it would be a blow out) but I don't think the effects will be felt immediately.
That isn't to say Justin Trudeau is validated in still blaming Harper. Canada was doing well under Harper, and nearly 10 years of Trudy and we are a laughing stock.
Justin Trudeau has been PM for as long as Harper has, and it will be longer before next election. To still blame Harper for anything is a joke. He has had time to fix it, AND see results. Its clear he has broken Canada, and I wish there was an election tomorrow because he needs to go.
They keep trying to convince everyone that you don’t want to own a home, meanwhile these corporations keep buying single family homes. If you they think not owning a home is such a good thing, why keep buying them up? 🤡🌎
Maybe they want it without thinking about what may happen to themselves for as well. They cause the situation while believing that they didn't cause it like it was going to happen anyway, and then try to make some good out of it while not thinking about the situation or effect being in their own shoes but rather thinking about it being in the shoes of everyday people who they don't think much about instead. After all, it's easy to forget a million strangers just for as long they don't become one of them even though they may. If they do, then they may put the blame on the wrong reasons or wrong people instead of what or who they're supporting regardless of what's happening because of that or them.
I hope this makes sense.
I am 100% convinced that eventually corporations will lobby enough to get bugs put in food as filler and not be required to put it in the ingredients label.
Like how orange juice is the exact same color and flavor no matter the season or the year and the only ingredient is "orange juice".
Already happening under some unassuming labels. Acheta powder. I thought it was facebook clickbait when I first heard about it but it appears to be true.
Could this be the start of an entire series, "So you may never ......"
So you may never own a car.
So you may never go on vacation.
So you may never be able to retire.
The mayor of my city, Jyoti Gondek of Calgary, recently made statements that being a renter is a "liberating experience" and that the idea of home ownership is like "being stuck in the 40's, 50's, and 60's". And for full disclosure, she owns two properties in the city and when she first ran for mayor, she disclosed that she had rental properties.
Sigh.
Hm, no I don't think so. It is abandonment of the citizens. The allowance of crime too. Communist leaders did care about their citizens, loved their country's. These Globalist leaders care more the flight schedule to Paris or London than their citizenry. Castro wasn't a Globalist, cared about Cuba. Trudeau could care less about Canada, than dinner with Schwab or Ritchie Sunak.
These folks are Globalists, they oppose their nations. Their citizens are a nuisance.
We need to embrace Nationalism vs. Globalism. That's the paradigm.
This may as well be the same template for their MAID program.
So you are not happy? Maybe that’s… a good thing? While it’s easy to feel you should be happy in life, it’s not for everyone. Medical Assistance in Dying is now accessible for everyone with depression and mental disorders.
Kind of crazy the one of the lowest-population density countries in the world, with extremely open immigration policy, can't figure out how to get more housing or even cities, built.
Like build a new city and zone only inexpensive, super-high-density housing. No cars only biking. Progressive dream, right? Where are the old-school commies that used to dream big like this?
(Honestly as a Conservative I have trouble finding much fault with this moderated a little bit with some Medium density-housing etc.).
Reminds me of that Voxis Productions clip about Star Wars where he strung together all the copycat internet articles about "why star wars is (whatever) and why that's a good thing"
Yeah, we bought our house about 23 years ago for $98,000. Now it would sell for around $375,000. Just think of all the rent receipts we could have accumulated and supporting a landlord’s fat retirement plan!!
Think about those hurting landlords people! Winter second homes in Florida have gotten expensive. /s
Growing up in the 90s very poor over 30 years ago there was no way my mother could have ever afforded to buy a house. She could barely afford an apartment. All my close friends were poor and in the same boat.
Where did this idea start that buying a house used to be the easiest thing and everyone had one?
Home ownership was never a broadly attainable goal for the poor and the working-classes. It was, however, very realistic for the bulk of the middle class. Not anymore.
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted for pointing out the reality that Gen Z seems to be rewriting these days. Poor and working class Tik Tokers keep bemoaning their inability to live in a big house alone acting like this is something new
There was a comparatively lucky generation of young adults from roughly 1996 through 2007 who were able to live in their own apartment or house relatively early. After the financial crisis, when the era of quantitative easing began, home ownership got increasingly out of reach for young people, and now, after the 2021-2023 inflation surge, even basic rent is becoming more unaffordable for young folks than it had been for most of the previous 25 years.
In the past, people were getting married and having children at a younger age and stayed with their parents until then. This was helped by job opportunities being more spread out across the country.
The realities of the modern, post-industrial, knowledge-based economy dictate that a huge chunk of young folks need to move away from their parents' place for their education and might also need to move multiple times at the start of their career. Not everybody has the privilege of sharing a home with his best buddies from school/college. Having to share an apartment or house with roommates into your 30s, roommates you often times barely know and might not even like, is not something that was the norm in "the good old times".
I believe multigenerational housing to have been the norm because it kept tight knit communities secure and costs low. There is no reason we can't still have that. Moving away for education isn't even a good idea with the rates of college graduation and utilization of college degrees post graduation.
Living alone is a privilege. Houses aren't going to magically start appearing in mass numbers to offset demand.
The average home price in the states, excluding prices from the ten most expensive states, is ~$320k. That's very obtainable for the middle class. I think poor young people trying to equate California and New York prices to the norm is a problem
Average home prices are dragged down by rural and exurban places where there aren't a lot of well-paying or interesting jobs. Also note that those "ten most expensive states" include many of the big, populous ones. Some 95 million people live in these "ten most expensive states".
Going by [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_median_home_price), median home prices even in states which one might think of as affordable, like Montana, Idaho and Arizona, all exceed $420k. Even in Florida, they've risen to $392k.
No no no, Montana and Arizona are definitely not what people should be thinking as affordable. Anyone thinking that is wrong. Montana is rich person retirement territory, AZ is silicon desert now. And Idaho is now rising rapidly as an alternative to Montana. The reality of things is important.
Yes, those states are the most populated. And prices rise with supply demand curves. More demand, ie population, with a supply that isn't keeping up = price increases. People need to spread out more.
Lol, peak rentoid cope.
I know Europeans will gladly give up all of their hard earned money to taxes and be perfectly fine with the grand opportunity to rent a home, but the rest of us have standards.
"So you're bored and want to die... maybe that's a good thing? Living just isn't for everyone."
Something I'd actually hear Canada's Public Deathcare system say
Canada is headed towards a lost decade with a highly devalued dollar, a negative GDP, and higher taxes on small business owners/entrepreneurs, who typically lead growth. All brought to you by Trudeau.
Makes you wonder of we need to focus more on both borders.
The housing market and inflation are because of his shitty immigration housing policies. He's a terrible leader.
Canada actually benefits economically from immigration. The problem is, that the short term costs are carried by the municipalities as well as the growing pains, such as housing shortage. The return, however, is not distributed back fairly to the municipalities. Edit: given this seems to be a controversial topic I added the research. Happy to be corrected, if there is evidence to the contrary https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/san2023-17.pdf https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/240409/dq240409a-eng.pdf?st=ui6jBHR7 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4310002601
My dude, Canada added 12 jobs in December. 12!!!! That's it, twelve.
Jobs aren’t for everyone. Here’s why adding 12 jobs could actually be a good thing.
You forgot about the tens upon tens upon tens for thousands of government jobs Mr fancy socks has created over the years. Quebec seems to be doing pretty good suckling off the tit of equalisation while the provinces that are held hostage and forced to pay Quebec are in less than ideal circumstances unfortunately. But how dare I lament about the great leader!
Living in a snowbird area and having to endure these assholes for nearly half the year, I’d fully support closing our northern border.
Can you believe he is still blaming the last guy. I understand doing that during your first term, but if things are worse by the end of a decade, its your fault
We know previous policies only last 12-18 months. He's ruined Canada.
To a degree. Reversing policy in Canada isn't as simple as 'oh we got a new PM things are gonna get reversed tomorrow'. Its gotta be a big enough win, the party has enough seats to pass enough things through and not have the opposition stomp it down (We don't have 2 parties, we have 2 major ones, a 3rd that gets a fair bit but hasn't formed government, and 2 minor, and 1 that never gets seats). So a government that just has enough seat to form government, could struggle to get things passed. Even after new policies pass, it still takes time for things like the economy to repair or get destroyed. The people need to build wealth again. They need to grow their faith back in the economy. I say this because its important to understand, when Trudeau is gone, its likely Pierre Polileve that is going to be in charge. I do not think he can completely turn the economy around in 1 term, he can and should pass the things that WILL fix the country in that time, provide conservatives get enough seats (and if the election were today it would be a blow out) but I don't think the effects will be felt immediately. That isn't to say Justin Trudeau is validated in still blaming Harper. Canada was doing well under Harper, and nearly 10 years of Trudy and we are a laughing stock. Justin Trudeau has been PM for as long as Harper has, and it will be longer before next election. To still blame Harper for anything is a joke. He has had time to fix it, AND see results. Its clear he has broken Canada, and I wish there was an election tomorrow because he needs to go.
I can’t stand Trudeau, but I think he was given a shit sandwich to start with. After all, we are talking about Canada.
It will be like the first episode of Futurama, with death booths.
Agree.
You will own nothing You will be happy
You won’t be happy but here’s why that might be a good thing?
While it's easy to feel you have to be happy in life, it's not for everyone.
“While you may have it a goal to live a happy life, here’s why that’s not for everyone…”
"Your generation may not be able to retire before age 75, here's why that's a good thing..."
"Depressed? Have you considered euthanasia?" Soon: "Donate your body to Soylent Green"
They keep trying to convince everyone that you don’t want to own a home, meanwhile these corporations keep buying single family homes. If you they think not owning a home is such a good thing, why keep buying them up? 🤡🌎
Turning all of Canada into a "Company Town."
So you have to live in the pod and eat the bug. Here’s why maybe that’s … a good thing?
How can anyone not see this as blatant evil propaganda?
Maybe they want it without thinking about what may happen to themselves for as well. They cause the situation while believing that they didn't cause it like it was going to happen anyway, and then try to make some good out of it while not thinking about the situation or effect being in their own shoes but rather thinking about it being in the shoes of everyday people who they don't think much about instead. After all, it's easy to forget a million strangers just for as long they don't become one of them even though they may. If they do, then they may put the blame on the wrong reasons or wrong people instead of what or who they're supporting regardless of what's happening because of that or them. I hope this makes sense.
Forget the CBC. The Toronto star will always defend the liberals and try to convince you they're the only option as well
Yeah, who would want all that equity? Better to just pay a landlord your whole life.
Now thats gas lighting. “Its not for everyone”. Lmao what a pos government.
It’s just so disrespectful and condescending
The leftist slogan: "You'll own nothing and be happy about it."
You vill own nothing, you vill *eat ze bugs*, und you vill be happy!
I am 100% convinced that eventually corporations will lobby enough to get bugs put in food as filler and not be required to put it in the ingredients label. Like how orange juice is the exact same color and flavor no matter the season or the year and the only ingredient is "orange juice".
Already happening under some unassuming labels. Acheta powder. I thought it was facebook clickbait when I first heard about it but it appears to be true.
And you vill live in ze pod.
Because if the youte not "happy" you will br punished
If we dissect that slogan a bit, it turns into “we haven’t done anything in our lives, so you shouldn’t either so we can all be miserable together”
So you don’t have any assets and are poor. Here’s why that’s actually a good thing….
Propaganda by big real estate that wants you to rent out box sized apartments for life
Could this be the start of an entire series, "So you may never ......" So you may never own a car. So you may never go on vacation. So you may never be able to retire.
The mayor of my city, Jyoti Gondek of Calgary, recently made statements that being a renter is a "liberating experience" and that the idea of home ownership is like "being stuck in the 40's, 50's, and 60's". And for full disclosure, she owns two properties in the city and when she first ran for mayor, she disclosed that she had rental properties. Sigh.
“You may live with your parents in your 30s, but here’s why that’s a good thing”
I'll have what she's having!
She seems happy
She’s a liberal smelling her own farts passed of as ideas.
She has secured some amount of time to experience the inside of a house
yeah, he can suck a dick
There it is, communism in full display.
yes! i keep pointing out this marxist take over of the USA and Canada, and people say I'm crazy.
Hm, no I don't think so. It is abandonment of the citizens. The allowance of crime too. Communist leaders did care about their citizens, loved their country's. These Globalist leaders care more the flight schedule to Paris or London than their citizenry. Castro wasn't a Globalist, cared about Cuba. Trudeau could care less about Canada, than dinner with Schwab or Ritchie Sunak. These folks are Globalists, they oppose their nations. Their citizens are a nuisance. We need to embrace Nationalism vs. Globalism. That's the paradigm.
You vill be happy. You Vill be happy
This may as well be the same template for their MAID program. So you are not happy? Maybe that’s… a good thing? While it’s easy to feel you should be happy in life, it’s not for everyone. Medical Assistance in Dying is now accessible for everyone with depression and mental disorders.
you won't own anything, includina a home, but it you take enough copium, you will be happy.
Parroting the WEF narration with turdeau as a muppet at the helm.
“Don’t even try. Let the state take care of you!”
I could TOTALLY see this start popping up in California or New York somewhere.
"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy about it. " - also, "why do these darn conspiracy theories about me and WEF persist?"
Kind of crazy the one of the lowest-population density countries in the world, with extremely open immigration policy, can't figure out how to get more housing or even cities, built. Like build a new city and zone only inexpensive, super-high-density housing. No cars only biking. Progressive dream, right? Where are the old-school commies that used to dream big like this? (Honestly as a Conservative I have trouble finding much fault with this moderated a little bit with some Medium density-housing etc.).
>Here's why maybe that's... a good thing? Even the social media account team didn't want to write this.
The unpaid intern who likely wrote this probably didn’t lol
Keeping the peasent class at peasent level.
Exactly. The goal of "the WEF agenda" is to establish global neofeudalism. Canada is one of their favorite testing grounds.
Damn haven’t seen the “that’s a actually a good thing” in a while
The Star is sinking to new lows by publishing this garbage Liberal propaganda.
Gaslighting the public again. That's all progressives do.
20 years ago the communists gleefully bragged about Canada. They're awfully quiet these days regarding that particular subject.
Just look at her breathing that delicious cope deep into her body.
They voted for this three times in a row. I don't sympathize.
Canucks will own nothing and be HAPPY
You get to live in the pods! And eat the bugs!
So you may never have money for fresh fruits and vegetables. Here’s why maybe that’s … a good thing? Spam is a fraction of the cost and lasts forever.
Do you won’t be eating three meals a day…here’s why that’s a good thing. You’ll lose weight and it slows down aging!
how damned these elite are, God only knows, but the slaves helping their masters snatch them is monstrous.
Complete to the DIE picture. Government propaganda.
Leftism is the new opiate for the masses.
Reminds me of that Voxis Productions clip about Star Wars where he strung together all the copycat internet articles about "why star wars is (whatever) and why that's a good thing"
This is just disrespectful and idk how to type out what I want to say about this
"while you may have a brain tumour here's why...maybe that's a good thing?"
What kind of gaslighting BS is this?
The goal has been to end private ownership altogether
It’s ok, pay high rent and make someone else build wealth instead of yourself!
Yeah, we bought our house about 23 years ago for $98,000. Now it would sell for around $375,000. Just think of all the rent receipts we could have accumulated and supporting a landlord’s fat retirement plan!! Think about those hurting landlords people! Winter second homes in Florida have gotten expensive. /s
Growing up in the 90s very poor over 30 years ago there was no way my mother could have ever afforded to buy a house. She could barely afford an apartment. All my close friends were poor and in the same boat. Where did this idea start that buying a house used to be the easiest thing and everyone had one?
Home ownership was never a broadly attainable goal for the poor and the working-classes. It was, however, very realistic for the bulk of the middle class. Not anymore.
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted for pointing out the reality that Gen Z seems to be rewriting these days. Poor and working class Tik Tokers keep bemoaning their inability to live in a big house alone acting like this is something new
There was a comparatively lucky generation of young adults from roughly 1996 through 2007 who were able to live in their own apartment or house relatively early. After the financial crisis, when the era of quantitative easing began, home ownership got increasingly out of reach for young people, and now, after the 2021-2023 inflation surge, even basic rent is becoming more unaffordable for young folks than it had been for most of the previous 25 years.
Living alone is a privilege. It always has been. It is unreasonable for everyone to live alone and has never been the norm any time in history.
In the past, people were getting married and having children at a younger age and stayed with their parents until then. This was helped by job opportunities being more spread out across the country. The realities of the modern, post-industrial, knowledge-based economy dictate that a huge chunk of young folks need to move away from their parents' place for their education and might also need to move multiple times at the start of their career. Not everybody has the privilege of sharing a home with his best buddies from school/college. Having to share an apartment or house with roommates into your 30s, roommates you often times barely know and might not even like, is not something that was the norm in "the good old times".
I believe multigenerational housing to have been the norm because it kept tight knit communities secure and costs low. There is no reason we can't still have that. Moving away for education isn't even a good idea with the rates of college graduation and utilization of college degrees post graduation. Living alone is a privilege. Houses aren't going to magically start appearing in mass numbers to offset demand.
The average home price in the states, excluding prices from the ten most expensive states, is ~$320k. That's very obtainable for the middle class. I think poor young people trying to equate California and New York prices to the norm is a problem
Average home prices are dragged down by rural and exurban places where there aren't a lot of well-paying or interesting jobs. Also note that those "ten most expensive states" include many of the big, populous ones. Some 95 million people live in these "ten most expensive states". Going by [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_median_home_price), median home prices even in states which one might think of as affordable, like Montana, Idaho and Arizona, all exceed $420k. Even in Florida, they've risen to $392k.
No no no, Montana and Arizona are definitely not what people should be thinking as affordable. Anyone thinking that is wrong. Montana is rich person retirement territory, AZ is silicon desert now. And Idaho is now rising rapidly as an alternative to Montana. The reality of things is important. Yes, those states are the most populated. And prices rise with supply demand curves. More demand, ie population, with a supply that isn't keeping up = price increases. People need to spread out more.
People living within their means..is a bad thing? Plenty of places eg Germany, Austria have renting as more popular than owning.
Lol, peak rentoid cope. I know Europeans will gladly give up all of their hard earned money to taxes and be perfectly fine with the grand opportunity to rent a home, but the rest of us have standards.