Like, trying to get those who primarily sell to working class folks to see how raising the minimum wage actually benefits them, because it means that all of their customers have more money to spend is nigh impossible. All they see is that they’ll have to raise prices, and it makes them even more hostile toward their employees.

Yeah this argument never really made sense to me. Unless your product’s only input cost is labour (which I can’t think of a single job that would apply to, let alone close to minimum wage job) your costs should only have to go up by a fraction of the minimum wage increase. This would leave a minimum wage worker/customer better off after buying your product than they would have if it was cheaper.

But isn’t the capital gains tax only on the new capital gained? What you’re saying actually sounds like a decent argument against sales taxes.

the party is taking a stand against a policy that disproportionately affects wealthy people and big corporations.

What about every single other policy that’s even tangentially related to affordability that disproportionately affects everyone who isn’t wealthy and small businesses?

Producers would also be able to package multiple products together as long as the package is still under the 30-gram limit, and products inside also meet packaging requirements. The change would mean producers could sell higher quantities of edibles in one outer package.

Hopefully this means I can get something like a 6 pack of drinks.

I think the number one factor there is real estate. You can’t start a farm out of your apartment and restaurants can’t easily exist out in the boonies where rent is cheaper.

Assuming you’re talking about a full service retirement home and not just a 55+ building $5000/mo seems like a good deal to me, at least from a BC perspective. You’d be looking at almost $2000 just to rent anywhere, you’d be lucky to have a meal cooked for you for $10, $20 if it’s decent quality, that’s another $900-1800/month. Once you consider utilities you’re pretty close to what a new renter would be paying if they refused to cook for themselves.

I mean it’s worth it for the cool knives alone.

Let’s be real, those of us who can’t afford housing can’t afford a jacked up F350.

The thought of an across-the-board regulation based rent cap never crossed my mind, but that actually could be effective and fair. If there was some kind of easy to understand formula based on the unit, potential landlords would easily be able to calculate whether it makes financial sense instead of simply cutting costs and squeezing as much rent out as possible. There wouldn’t be an incentive to kick people out (can’t jack the rent) but there would be one to keep it maintained/updated since they’d be competing on everything but price. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if my rent went up a bit if it meant my unit would be properly maintained or I had the freedom to move somewhere similar without doubling my rent.

Edit: you could make it more enticing to the current landlords by easing some renter protections, like making it much easier to remove problem tenants

Yeah, I do think the assisted living industry would be forced to adjust though. It’s not like the real estate market in general, if the majority of their potential buyers simply don’t have enough money it’s not like they can pivot to other demographics or attract wealthy people from outside the country.

If things aren’t corrected, it won’t be long before a whole generation of new seniors is cash poor with no house to sell.

It really sounds like the issue there is just another subset of housing (un)affordability.

I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the rent to increase the normal legal amount every year (2-5%) as it would with most landlords.

And they’re always some ridiculous quantity for the item too. Like 4 4L jugs of milk for $18 or $8 each (made up example but not far off).

I’ve gone into a grocery store and left after filling up my cart because the line was comically long. Who would ever voluntarily go to a busier grocery store? I wish there were still 24hr grocery options so I could go in the middle of the night when it’s quiet.

If Alberta has a problem receiving federal funding why should the rest of us fight it? Take all the savings and divvy it up between all the other provinces that could make good use of it.

Somehow I got lucky and the paywall disappeared on refresh. My takeaway was that we should make the capital gains on investment real estate (I’m assuming anything other than principal residence) be taxed at a 100% inclusion rate. Part of the reason is that most of the people seeing these gains are at the age where they’re starting to require a higher share of government spending while earning less from employment, so it’s reasonable for them to pay closer to their share of taxes.

When I was in highschool (early '10s) I remember successfully arguing that since laptops were allowed in class we should be allowed to use our phones for schoolwork too. Whether that was actually good is debatable. I did actually type the majority of my work on my phone but I also wasted a lot of time screwing around, although the same could be said for the computer lab and I’m sure it would’ve been the same if I ever had a laptop.

(One note, apparently the school I went to was kind of weird, and only half your classes were actually lessons by your own teacher. Generally all devices were restricted during those classes, with limited exceptions on a teacher-by-teacher basis.)

If you’re doing 115km/h it would absolutely not be safer to have the trucks maxed out at 30km/h slower than you. Arguably the safest speed on a divided highway is whatever the flow of traffic is (to minimize passing and lane changing).

The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn’t practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can’t possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.

I absolutely understand, I’m in a fringe situation myself. I think when we focus too much on the wild cases like yours, we end up skipping over the minor issues that would solve the problem for most of the people who answered “not considering an EV”. We need to make them more affordable to the people who can least afford it (rebates for used cars?), and we need to make it possible for people who rent to reliably charge overnight and/or at work.

Edit: I forgot your solutions about transportation, those are great as well and might add people to the “not considering any next vehicle” category. There will still be people like us though that public transport can’t work for, especially as you said out west where things are a bit spread out outside the big cities.