Nouveau_Burnswick @ Nouveau_Burnswick @lemmy.world

Posts

23

Comments

960

Joined

2 yr. ago

The bank made $1.39bn 4 months instead of $2.09bn like last month.

So sad

Fair enough, maybe it's just the size of my library/library conglomerate, but I've never waited for an ebook.

Just because no-one has mentioned it yet.

Your local library. You probably don't even have to go in, once you're account is set up you can check out books online.

Your bag is in Pearson. If your flight goes over Canadian airspace, your bag goes to Pearson.

Vancouver to Mumbai? Pearson.

New York to Seoul? Pearson.

Moscow to Cuba? Pearson.

Helicopter skiing out of Whistler? Pearson.

Driving Québéc City to Charlottetown, but you hit a hill in New Brunswick too fast and catch some air? Pearson.

Greyhound bus from Calgary to Edmonton hits a pothole? Pearson.

The only convincing argument I've ever heard for Toronto being the center of the universe, is the supermassive luggage hole that is Pearson airport.

As for a non-hyperbolic example, I went Atlanta-Montreal-Ottawa a few years. At the customs in Montreal, it was a disaster zone; bags piled in random corridors; and it was abundantly clear there was no chance my bag would make it. What wasn't clear is how my bag ended up in Pearson, then on to Ottawa, then back in Pearson again, then finally in Ottawa.

Shopify is smaller at 11,000 staff. But it's everywhere.

I don't need an airtag to tell them what my bag looks like, and that it's at terminal 3 of Pearson. Where else would it be when I flew direct Montréal to Halifax?

Just tell them their parents didn't wear coats when they were teens either.

The newest trend will be bundling up!

"there's a fine for that"

"I'll pay the fine"

"In that case, I have a bonus paying the fine fine"

Did the NHL outsource fines to Ticketmaster too?

CMHC built and helpt built about a million houses in '45 to '49 because we needed them.

We're soon to be short 3.5 million houses. So build them.

The only discernable difference is that than in '45 the unhoused were already organized and more apt to violence due to the nature of being a demobilized army.

65% of Canadians can get pissed off about it. But the alternatives look worse, and they'll be more pissed off.

Or we can wait until the number of homeowners drops below the number of non-owners (20 years based on the trend of the last two censuses) and see what the masses decide over the gentry then.

My apologies, the statement was "every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value"

As a person who's in a house and won't hate losing that value, the statement remains false.

I'd also guess that the members of the local anti-gentrification groups also won't hate losing that value; but that's only a guess.

I'm aware. Semi-liqud fluids are the tricky ones, like beans.

Fine. New policy.

We restrict the sale of new cars. We can make car zoning, so only SUVs can be purchased in some places, only trucks in another. Maybe in some small areas we'll allow sedans. Well Make sure that auto manufacturers can build the cars people want, or on the numbers they want them. Want a bicycle instead? Too bad, only cars are allowed here. People are walking? We'll just replace sidewalks with more road for cars.

Sure cars will become way more expensive, bit everyone who already owns a car can watch the value of their car go up!

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

I do not. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

A percentage of homeowners want prices to increase would be more correct. I don't know what that percentage is, but it cannot be 100%.

I policy like this may ignore them, but housing prices can reduce on their own without any government intervention...

I've sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that's a risk of ownership. I could have avoided that risk by renting.

Your house is only worth however much the next person will pay for it. They are under NO obligation to pay you more than you paid.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty. "Oh hi Bob, it really sucks that you are spending 60% of your income on a place to live; but the ethereal value of this thing I bought keeps going up, and I would love for it to continue going up, even though the future is completely speculative and the whole thing could go tits up and skyrocket again no matter what we do; so I'm going to keep supporting policies that keep the line going up"

Bonus point for undertaxed homes, and suburban regions that survive on pushing the ponzi scheme further out or leeching on city core taxes; for LVT is a whole other kettle of fish.

How are you calculating the value it had when “we” bought it

Literally how much you were willing to pay. That's it's. (Technically also how much the previous owner/builder was willing to sell for; but that's also how much they would pay in an indirect sense)

if you reduce prices

And if prices reduce on their own? I've sold for less than purchase twice. It sucks. But I could have rented and not accepted that risk.

and some will get killed.

If you get killed, it's because you tried to invest in something that shouldn't be an investment?

You know who really gets killed? People who buy a home, and then that home has major defaults, and the repairs are 50% of the purchase price 5 years in, and insurance doesn't pay because it's a building fault, and the builders down pay because they rotate companies every year, and maybe you'll be able to sue the city who neglected their inspection duties or the insurance of the builders and architects but that file is still ongoing 4 years later, and even if it is successful will maxed at an amount that will only cover 30% of the work.

But that's a risk of home ownership, and I could have rented to avoid those risks.

As a person who can't stand table tea spoons and other not precise units of measurements

American recipes: add 12 oz of whatever.

Me: Weight or volume!!!

I don't want houses to lose that stored value, or all the money I've been shoveling into my mortgage I could have been saving for w/e.

Obviously I don't either.

It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years

No, we've been purchasing a thing for years, we have not been saving. We can sell that thing, but it is under no obligation to be valued higher than when we bought it.

I saw xmas stuff in winners/homesense early Oct this year.

YULfest

Now I've got to propose a holiday party at Montréal airport

every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value

False. I'm in a house. I want to live in a different house. I can't afford a different house. Make houses cheaper.

That said there is some financial fuckery that can happen with house prices reducing. Particularly if you end up needing major repairs (though that's just the nature of owning...)

Housing price stagnation seems an acceptable medium.

upsetting that category of voters

I postulate the criticalist category is the >70 crowd, for the following reasons:

1. They vote.
2. They don't work much, so existing assets and pensions are the main finances in their life. Owned housing is probably the biggest part of that portfolio; with little chance of opening up new revenue streams. This makes them the most vulnerable to (real or precived) decreases in housing stock value.
3. They may be, or are planning to become, reverse mortgaged.
4. They vote.