joshhsoj1902 @ joshhsoj1902 @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

228

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not sure I agree there is a massive infrastructure need. The average American could keep their EV charged today with a standard 120v outlet.

I don't have numbers for how any car owners park their car overnight somewhere that has access to a 120v plug, but it would surprise me if it was less than 50%.

Batteries are fine today and I lay getting better, fast charging is nice to have, but definitely not needed.

This isn't an unsolvable problem though given demand.

Assuming you're in an appartment with dedicated parking, it's not crazy difficult or expensive to install some lvl 2 chargers, the real blocker here is demand, if residents aren't demanding it the building isn't going to supply it.

If you're stuck with street parking, you're right, your use case isn't best suited for EVs right now. But this case also isn't a huge portion of vehicle owners, so it doesn't seem like justification to stop rollout.

This Samsung app is the one thing I need to actually switch my family over to jellyfin.

I could do the workaround for myself, but I'm not doing it for others.

So for now I'm the only jellyfin user

Criticising only works if you have an argument to back you up. When you're just making things up you're just talking shit.

People don't really take "talking shit" seriously, which is why you're getting the reaction you are.

If you have anything substantial to back up anything you're saying, people are generally happy to listen. But the reality is you're regurgitating the same fake points that we've all heard and have been disproven dozens of times.

You say all that, while they continue to push for and in many cases successfully push through bills that do help the working class.

You're welcome to your own opinions, but realize that when they aren't actually based on anything they likely aren't true.

This opinion piece reads like a high school paper.

What a waste of my time reading it.

The closest working class party we have at the federal level is the NDP, while the Conservatives are farthest.

If you at all care about the working class you shouldn't ever vote conservative.

I certainly miss self checkouts. They were always faster, and I never had significant problems with the.

Losing self checkout at the grocery store has been especially painful. It was so much more efficient to grab items from my cart and pack them directly, the extra step of passing them through a cashier causes me to forget what items I haven't bagged yet, and makes it that much harder to group items while I'm checking out, which then makes it a little harder when unloading at home. That one change has added 15-20 minutes extra overall time commitment to any large grocery run, and I'm pretty bitter about it

That isn't the definition of working class, or middle class

The carbon pricing redistributes the earnings back to people.

This then does let people have an impact on climate change by influencing them to choose products that produce less carbon and therefore appear to cost less.

The genius is that the price difference is artificial, if on average people in the province choose the more expensive option, they will make back the difference quarterly.

As is the system only really penalizes people who consistently choose the more carbon inefficient options and do it a lot.

Did you not read the earlier comments in this thread? That very point was already addressed.

The point the article is trying to make is that after selling the house, even after mortgage is settled, these homeowners have a lot of cash. Much more than their renter peers who are in the same position (houseless) and trying to find something they can afford.

The point above seems obvious when it's put like that, but it's still hard for people to grasp.

This is why the article argues that people who are in the privileged position of having huge equity in their house need to also consider what that does to their wealth class, even if they themselves don't believe it. A lot of home owners who have had a house for 10-15 years (and even more who paid off their house years ago) have no clue how much harder it has gotten for middle class income people to buy houses.

I don't agree with that take.

Those house owners likely fall into upper middle class rather than middle class.

Another way to look at it. Depending on who you ask middle class roughly covers household income of about 75k-150k

If one of those home owners sold their home and made 1 million in equity, that money could be expected to make them ~50k a year. For many current home owners that hypothetical raise would push them above the middle-class bracket.

For anyone who purchased a house in the last 5ish years sure. Much longer than that and they are sitting on a whole lot of equity.

Yes if they sold the house they would have 1/2 - 1 million dollars in cash and be homeless. But that's a lot of dollars better than all the other people who currently also don't own a home and don't have all that cash.

Which is sorta the point the article is trying to make.

A lot of people do love in dense areas in cities though. That's what makes them dense.

And programs like the carbon pricing makes those places more attractive to build denser housing.

EVs don't even need to be the only alternative, if the carbon pricing is encouraging someone to buy a more fuel efficient ICE vehicle, the incentive is still working.

I still have such a hard time understanding how people are calling the carbon pricing setup a stick, most of us are getting more money back from the program. Yes overall oil prices worldwide have gone up since the program started, but international oil prices aren't impacted by Canadian carbon pricing policy...

The rebate is paid out quarterly

The trouble you're having is with increased gas prices is a global problem not caused by the carbon tax, oil prices have gone up everywhere.

You asking to get rid of the carbon tax is just you asking to have less money in your pocket, which is hard to understand when you're also complaining about costs.

All of those improvements do and are happening though, but ridership is used to inform the changes.

The denser parts of cities do have transit that accomplishes what you're asking for.

And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds.

Policy like this isn't meant to impact everyone the same way.

If a city has public transit, they likely have coverage targets. Every city does this differently, but in most cities, the majority of people are targetted to be covered.

This means that if more people start using the system who are covered, it's more likely the system itself will be expanded to cover more places.

But you're all missing the 2nd incentive, this could also incentivise people to move to places near transit and could encourage higher density buildings near better transit.

Both of those are things you want, and both of them are things the carbon pricing helps do.

How do you build transit infrastructure when you don't know where the demand is?

I encourage you to look into China's bullet train network, they did what you're suggesting. And the last I heard the system is struggling because the stations and lines weren't built where people actually needed them so it's heavily underutalized.

The most successful public transit systems were ones built up over time. It's going to take decades to fix public transit in many of our cities, are there any cities that aren't doing this?

Also remember that city policy falls under provincial jurisdiction. I was surprised this year to even see the feds start trying to throw money at that problem and incentivise cities to rethink zoning. But it takes time, and it also takes voting people who care into the right spots (city hall and provincial governments)

The carbon tax isn't a "shakedown" btw, the income is redistributed.

Are you suggesting there is a city in Canada that doesn't have some form of public transit? I'm not aware of any large cities like that so I really struggle to understand why you feel the carbon pricing wouldn't be effective right now.

What's the tax in this case? The current carbon tax is redistributed equally, so there's no greed there, it's effectively more of a wealth transfer then a tax.