Poutinetown @ Poutinetown @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

229

Joined

2 yr. ago

What's happening with this funding is that your boss heard you had trouble paying for your bills, so they asked for a bigger budget, and used the extra money to move the office to a nicer building, buy better screens and chairs in the new office, but does not increase your salary.

If you mean the announcement gives the "perception" that soldiers are being helped when in reality it will be given to private companies then yeah it makes sense

The announcement doesn't mention anything about a better salary for military, or about better mental health support after discharge or better pension. The military budget increase will be to build arctic bases and upgrade submarines. How exactly does that help the actual soldiers?

Very interesting! Seasonality is interesting, I assumed construction could still happen in winter, but higher cost definitely makes sense in terms of effectively reducing it to a minimum level.

Sad that economy plays a big role in terms of essentially laying off a lot of workers (forcing some to quit the industry). I wonder if that also applies to the manufacturing and car industry too

Thats interesting, wasn't aware of the cyclical nature! I thought that construction happens all year round? Or is it due to poor staffing?

Alright, it's funny how a similar post on investing in public compute for AI got comments on "what about housing" upvoted to the top, while this comment gets downvoted with very little "discussions".

Now that it's the military all of a sudden there's nothing to criticize, guess it's a good investment that will not end up in the pocket of the military?

Again, not saying the military shouldn't be getting that money; clearly arctic defense is not off the table with how Russia has been acting. What I'm saying is how differently people here react to doing something crucial like building a national AI strategy that could hedge against private-held automation technology, vs spending on the military to potentially defend against Russians.

Yes, housing needs more money (and better planning), but so does public AI infrastructure (used to benefit Canadians) and military.

Why are we not training more construction workers? Do they expect the immigration growth will bring the houses with them?

Wonder how many houses we can build with that money.

Also nowhere in my comment am I talking about trickle down. If you read again, you'll see I'm focusing on solving the problem via not just blindly throwing money at the problem, but doing things that actually make sense. You can't just build 100 high rises in saskatoonand expect things will work out: utilities/internet, transport, groceries/restaurants, healthcare, education, entertainment, and many more things need to be swiftly and strategically added. Some people think they should come from private companies, I literally suggested nationalizing them through pension funds, at the end it doesn't matter as long as they are all urgently added. Again, if having a roof over our heads was the only issue, you can solve it now by buying a mobile home and moving to Atlantics or the Territories.

I totally agree the money should be distributed now. But spending $500 billions doesn't happen instantaneously, even if it gets allocated now and the first cheque is written tonight, you can't just throw 2B per day and housing will magically appear. It should have happened 10 years ago, second best is today, but we got a measly 20B today instead of 100+ that would actually make sense.

I forgot how much of an echo chamber Lemmy is.

All the posts are rephrasing (1) why not more housing investments (2) AI is already doing well enough, why give American companies more money.

Zero discussions of the nuances of investing, the timing of the investment, HOW it should have been spent. Instead, it's all "WE SHOULD BE INVESTING IN HOUSING".

This is only a fraction of what they announced this week in housing funds, which is 7.9B in funding and 15B in loan:

This week, we announced a $15 billion top-up to the Apartment Construction Loan Program, a new $6 billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, a new $1.5 billion Canada Rental Protection Fund, and a $400 million top-up to the Housing Accelerator Fund.

The problem with housing isn't solely how much is invested at the federal level, but really the laws (at all 3 levels) that need to be completely rewritten from scratch for the 21st century. What's the point of giving more money to provinces if it ends up subsidizing luxury real estate developers selling to rich foreigners? Does a 20M invested in building Drake's Toronto downtown vacation house end up helping most Canadians?

What we really need is aggressive development of not just housing, but high-quality-low-margin housing, and all the infrastructure (water/electricity/hospital/schools) and public transport that goes with it.

We shouldn't take 20 years to decide if we should buy a new train line - we should build now and think later. In fact, we should be giving contracts to Canadian companies (something that Europe/Japan/Korea/China tend to do), or at least force PSP/CDPQ to gain a majority stake in Alstom (sorry Macron) so they can consistently offer the cheapest price. Hell, go ahead and nationalize CN while at it, take over the freight rails and force cargos to wait. What are they gonna do, take the congested roads?

We shouldn't be talking about millions, but billions, when it comes to housing. If we want 4M houses, which might cost something around 300K per unit and 100K of other infra upgrade costs, that'd take 1.6 trillions. The 20B allocated is literally a bandaid to cover a gunshot wound, and their 2B investment in AI would not change anything at the even the research level (considering 200M over 5 years to maybe 10 schools, that's 40M a year which is less than 4% of the budget of a research university in Canada).

What we need is a 500B fund, half coming from federal/provincial/municipal (the latter who are collecting all those taxes and should be reinvesting a lot more on education and utilities), the other half from industry, spent over 10 years, with a clear, unpoliticizable, efficient, and unstoppable plan (apart from environmental and indigenous issues, nothing should stand in the way).

So really, people here are getting angry that "AI" is getting the crumbs of the pie instead of "housing", not one is thinking about who's eating the rest of the pie (private sectors owned by Americans like Bill Gates who's the major shareholder of CN).

This week, we announced a $15 billion top-up to the Apartment Construction Loan Program, a new $6 billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, a new $1.5 billion Canada Rental Protection Fund, and a $400 million top-up to the Housing Accelerator Fund.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/04/05/changing-how-we-buildhomescanada

Probably means workers will have to take lower salary, since growth initiatives are lower (partly due to interest rates but also companies losing a lot of the optimism of post-pandemic growth projections).

What we urgently need is low-interest loans for small low-risk businesses to ensure the workers can find work. We don't need to lend billions to large corporations or millions to SME that will employ 5 more workers.

Instead, giving out loans of 10k-100k with near zero interest rate to kickstart, preserve or grow low overhead businesses (hairdressers, plumbers, carpenters, home electricians, physiotherapists, private chefs).

The article is written in a very misleading way. 10-20% could be seen as a "good" portion, but it will be returned in the next year since 6K a year will be in the lowest tax bracket.

That's crazy. 30 yrs of housing shortages

How many millions are we behind? With an average occupancy of 2.5, some 4M houses would house 10M population, which is the equivalent of 20 years of population growth in Canada.

Would be great if there's also a fund for new starts! Affordable units may not be available everywhere, for places where it's not, denser new starts could fill the gap, especially since non profits could choose to focus more on quality/affordability/sustainability.

Hence making it mandatory, and make breeders only be allowed to sell to certified owners.

There should be formal training for people who want to own a dog larger than a certain size. The number of negligent owners is astounding.

And the company came under fire again in 2018 after The Wall Street Journal revealed it was allowing third-party developers to trawl users’ Gmail inboxes, to which Google responded by reminding users it was within their power to grant and revoke those permissions.

So you can remove those permissions, just that it's enabled by default. Shitty design, but it's not mandatory to enable those, just like how you are not forced to use edge when you get a Windows computer.