Your one example is pretty easy to refute, I own my house 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. It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years.
I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike, every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value, and any politician who lowers the current value of property will have to deal with upsetting that category of voters. It seems like building more affordable houses would be better, it'll have a similar effect, but probably not as drastic.
If they put effort into making them environmentally friendly and employeed/educated people to do that we could make our country a nicer place to live. Just have to breakup the grocery conglomerates and things would be looking up
On the "sell it like any other asset", you still have to live somewhere, those places cost money. On the "borrow against it", now you've got debt (that costs money to have), I guess your saying anyone with that much money should be able to make more money off it via leverage than they use?
When i think rich, i think doesn't have to work, but maybe that's independently wealthy.
your implied argument that supply and demand doesn’t exist for housing in Canada
Not sure how you could figure this was at all implied. What was implied was that you are hateful of people not like you, and essentially making the "they took our jerbs" argument but for houses.
For this to be true all immigrants would have to be wealthy enough to be able to scoop up all supply of homes in Canada. This just can't be the case considering the refugee status of many immigrants.
A complex problem like this has significant other factors including speculation, reduction of public housing, inflation.
We should welcome more people, and continue our Canadian values of supporting those in need through out the world. Learn some compassion for your fellow human beings, or go to Florida, where you can be surrounded by like minded people.
I hear this quite a bit, and think there's actually a good deal of nuance to it. I've seen places that insisted on comments for everything, and it was silly, a significant number of comments had no value. This made people not read comments, as opposed to other places I've worked with very few comments - when you ran across a comment you gave it more weight (something here was complex, or not as simple as it seemed).
So imo, use comments which can communicate effectively, but use them sparingly for important parts that are complicated, for the rest attempt to communicate with the code itself.
In the past when. I've done this calc renting was worth it till you'd lived at a place for about 5 years. Don't think this flat statement is true even now
A higher standard means ignoring voting citizens?
That seems unfair