SamuelRJankis @ SamuelRJankis @lemmy.world

Posts

60

Comments

260

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Hodgins says he was offered a C$2,000 flight voucher by the airline, but said compensation would not “fix the problem” of how the airline failed its disabled passengers."

Given how much this seems to be happening I'd be for fining any airline that does this 100k. Half for the victims and half for disability advocacy groups.

I'd actually find it strange they'd care.

On a getting\keeping the job level it's clear that most Canadians thinks we have a 2 party system. So they just have to wait their turn.

On a social economical level the average MP makes 200k, get substantial subsidies, decides their own raises and definitely not working the 40hrs x 52ish weeks a year.

For the humanitarian front the average Canadian donates about $350 a year. I believe we're seeing about the same amount of concern from the MP's.

In fairness if stupid people could just stop doing stupid things they wouldn't be stupid.

As far as I know the other two issues the convoy folk showed up for was the Calgary 15 minute city and the recent transgender policies at schools.

Microsoft's pay guidelines for job offers:

Level 70:

Base pay: $231,700 to $361,500

On-hire stock awards: $310,000 default to $1.2 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $945,000

Level 69:

Base pay: $202,400 to $316,000

On-hire stock awards: $235,000 default to $1.1 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $750,000

Level 68:

Base pay: $186,200 to $291,000

On-hire stock awards: $177,000 default to $1 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $490,600

Level 67:

Base pay: $171,600 to $258,200

On-hire stock awards: $168,000 default to $700,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $336,000

Level 66:

Base pay: $157,300 to $236,300

On-hire stock awards: $75,000 default to $600,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $160,000

Level 65:

Base pay: $144,600 to $216,600

On-hire stock awards: $36,000 default to $300,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $90,000

Level 64:

Base pay: $125,000 to $187,700

On-hire stock awards: $24,000 default to $250,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $60,000

Level 63:

Base pay: $113,900 to $171,500

On-hire stock awards: $17,000 default to $200,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $44,000

Level 62:

Base pay: $103,700 to $156,400

On-hire stock awards: $11,000 default to $125,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $32,000

Level 61:

Base pay: $92,600 to $138,100

On-hire stock awards: $6,500 default to $75,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $24,000

Level 60:

Base pay: $83,500 to $125,000

On-hire stock awards: $4,500 default to $50,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $16,000

Level 59:

Base pay: $74,400 to $110,800

On-hire stock awards: $3,000 default to $30,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $12,000

Level 58:

Base pay: $70,300 to $92,600

On-hire stock awards: $2,500 default to $20,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 57:

Base pay: $63,800 to $83,000

On-hire stock awards: $1,500 default to $10,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 56:

Base pay: $60,700 to $77,900

On-hire stock awards: $1,500 default to $10,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 55:

Base pay: $55,200 to $71,300

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 54:

Base pay: $51,600 to $67,000

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 53:

Base pay: $46,600 to $59,700

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 52:

Base pay: $42,500 to $54,600

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

It's true that large organizations want to sweep things under the rug. Especially the current government but I think it should be clearer what really went wrong here.

Most victims would just go public right away if they wanted to make a spectacle of the incidents. Reporting things internally and have it make its way up the pay grade actually seemed to be good since it made it up all the way to a VP.

Now this idiot needs to be at the very minimum fired and banned from any public sector job. People really shouldn't make this one of this ambiguous situations where we make let an large entity divvy up the problem until no one is really accountable.

“As you were made aware during pre-deployment training, which occurred from 6 to 15 September 2022, there are risks involved in deploying into a theatre of operations where numerous countries work and live together and of the cultural differences that exist as a result,” wrote Ben Ouellette, vice president of CFMWS"

Unless I'm missing something aside from the professor stating there's seemingly no changes there's also no specifics items that is targeted to cheaper despite Minister Champagne patting himself on the back for a job well done.

From the CBC article it appears they're going to keep things rather opaque.

"Champagne also said that the examples he gave were only part of the plans grocers have presented to him. He said he wouldn't reveal more details in order to ensure fair competition."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grocery-chains-promise-more-discounts-price-freezes-1.6987787

Maybe, but probably not as much as investing in infrastructure that lowers the 15,000 km the average Canadian drives a year.

Canadians really need to start voting for actual competent people instead of parties. Even the pretense of parading a Ukrainian guy around due to the Russian invasion is rather repugnant behavior.

One of the aspects I see rarely mentioned is how bad investors is for people quality of life of people actually living in those places.

For anyone that's been involved in strata affairs they've probably seen many cases where investors refuse to make repairs for as long as possible so they can cash out and make it someone's problem. Or where new builds are accepted with horrible design and finishing. They don't care if the layout so bad that you have to stand on the toilet to open the bathroom door or the tiles have so much lippage it'll slice your foot open, that's s the renter or the next buyers problem.

Why do people always act like can only be one thing done to resolve the housing issue.

We could build our way out of this like a screw can be driven in with a hammer. It would probably just damage the screw, the wood and do a poor job binding the materials. We could attempt to build our way out of this while seeing how much investors skim off the top.

An extra few hundred thousand houses is going to take years if not decades to get built but we could have new taxes in the span of months and the houses would still be built. However none of these are even the real issue.

I also don't understand how that person came to their conclusion based off of:

"We should allow mixed-use buildings of at least six storeys in all our neighbourhoods—and ensure that they are not only easier to approve, but also more viable to build. "

User tagging similar to Reddit Enhancement Suite. Specifically keeping a count of up/down votes of other users and displaying next to their comments. Also when tagging users it saves a link to the comment causing you to tag them.

The current user tagging feature is the largest reason I subscribe to sync Ultra. It's really one of the only things that helped out with the spam aside from keeping to smaller communities.

The problem is that Canada has not developed enough for the population growth while we let multiple people take their cuts before it ever ends up being someone's home.

On top of that Canadian voters overwhelmingly said they wanted more of the same last election by pretty much voting for the same 2 parties has brought us to this point.

The solution is complicated because people can't agree on the problem.

As with your comment and subject of the article there is plenty of people that are perfectly happy with the housing crisis as long as the remain to the favourable side of it.

This type strategic voting against Liberals and Conservative is how Canada has just alternated between two bad parties for the last few decades.

Progress takes time and it doesn't mean every single moment things have to go in the right direction. Canada can survive the Liberals and Conservatives for a couple more terms it means some type of political progress.

I think it should be clearer the Liberals has only done things where people pump even more money into real estate.

I really don't understand why there's any debate whether they would do anything for prices when the person who was their Housing Minister flipped houses and said investor like him was doing Canadians a solid.

While I agree the answer to the issue is the solution. As I noted it doesn't seems like people agree on the issue.

As someone who believes:

A) Housing investors collectively have made incredibly large amounts of money at cost of other Canadians.

B) Essentially every single level of government has done little to aid in housing/infrastructure developments. If not outright block them.

C) Given the other 2 issues aren't dealt with immigration is the only thing that can completely pivot overnight but we've only increased it.

I think the biggest issues is that in the last election 80% of voters seemed to think more of the same was okay. To be clear I'm talking about the people who voted for a party who's housing minister said that investor is helping the situation or the party's leader said the same or people who couldn't even be bothered to vote.

Those people will also need to factor in how much housing is causing localized inflation which is eating into their monthly cash flow. Unless the person has a rather large real estate portfolio they could defer the burden to I don't think the current situation is going to work out well for most single dwelling owners unless they plan to move away soon.

The people with "balls" are probably sitting at home playing with them since most of them didnt get elected.

I'm not sure if I'm an outlier, but I think most politicians run for the power, influence, top 1% income and the opportunity it opens up for them. The Canadian Housing Minister probably spends more time thinking about what socks to wear for the day more than housing affordability.