People definitely downvote on things they don’t agree with.

This is different from downvoting because someone expressed their perspective.

getting down voted for expressing your perspective.

How do you know this is the case? Maybe there are other reasons to downvote?

I think the difference between “I can’t” and “I don’t wanna” is big enough to be worth splitting. For instance, when trying to think of reasons for men that “can’t” abandon masculinity, you’re looking for externalities (pressure). If you think about why don’t men “want to”, you’ll find plenty of self-serving reasons and rationalization, which in my opinion is a more realistic framing.

Do men feel like “they can’t abandon masculinity”? Is that a widespread feeling men have?

I don’t see it much. What I see the most is men that don’t want to abandon masculinity.

That’s great news, thanks for sharing!

So pie charts are the newest trend for dietary guides? I won’t miss the bullshit of the food pyramid but kinda surprised that it’s gone

Edit: I wasn’t expecting pyramid fans out there lol really don’t understand the downvotes

Could be just a lens flare though

Amusingly the first reply in this post to self-identify is a non-vegan explaining why they’re not vegan.

This joke has always been silly but nowadays it’s ironically reversed

Hell yes they should. Every city should. And expand labour laws to force companies to pay for some of it that would otherwise be coming out of worker paychecks. Make companies share the burden of sprawling development and car dependency. When companies decide to put their offices in Richmond and selectively hire people who commute from North Vancouver, it ruins transportation and the planet for everyone.

Good. Hope it closes permanently

Of course, but you can’t fight everyone.

Clearly some can, and it’s a group large enough to make it to the headline

This might actually lead to housing prices dropping significantly.

This has been scarcely fulfilled promise so far, looks like this prediction has been a bit overestimated. I would very much welcome it but wouldn’t bet on it.

It’s not good enough.

This is a bit subjective, but not unfair.

Trudeau and his government are moving us backwards in climate change action.

Hmm, well, small steps forward is still forward movement.

It’s understandable that this person has this much influence, even though it’s not an elected position. But I do agree that the PBO tone and positioning is very worrying. There’s clearly some agenda in there and the man felt he had something to gain in this biased report. 100% influence peddling, though this is usually hard to prove.

Decent article but senseless headline. Nobody ever positioned mandatory service as a method to make Canadians love their country…

I appreciate the Tyee squeezing every possible angle against this but…

trading partners take the threat of climate change seriously and use carbon tariffs to punish other countries they see as free riders

The US and they would be happy to see the carbon tax go away, so they don’t have “communism” nearby, and we know that “trading partner” for Canada means mostly the US. The odds of Canada getting sanctioned for backtracking a 1 yr old tax is negligible.

This is addressed in the article (A greening American leviathan), but I won’t be holding my breath. Even if carbon tariffs has bipartisan appeal for now, let’s see what happens when the time comes.

Because he knows conservatives are coming, and this is yet another futile attempt to cater to these devils before election

keeping returns below inflation will divert investors from the real estate market over time.

There are multiple types of Real Estate investors. We want to attract investors who build, who finance land development, infill, retrofits and so on. These will keep coming because the goal is to sell the labor of construction, and that can still be profitable. We don’t want to attract land speculators or rent-seekers, these provide little value to the market.

They will HODL however if not presented with exit strategy. If they are allowed time to divest and exit - they will IMO

Investors (i.e. institutional/professionals, not amateurs) don’t hold on to investments because they lack an exit strategy. It’s the exact opposite. Investors get rid of assets as soon as there’s enough information to say a loss is likely.

I know that the biggest chunk of real estate “investors” are amateur shops, people hoarding homes as their retirement plan, and these might hold on despite bad performance yeah. This happens all over the world because in most markets Real Estate is a bad investment, yet people are addicted to it.

But in any case, I was discussing the outcomes under the hypothesis that home prices are following inflation, so the hypothesis includes the assumption that there’s enough market transactions to put those prices under control.

I think the plausible circumstance is them selling and moving out of Canada

Or moving to SK

I’d say that would be fine in theory, if “retain its value” meant that housing would follow very closely but tailing local inflation. That won’t happen though. As long as “housing needs to retain its value” ideology runs the country, housing will be viewed as an investment and scarcity will cause it to push inflation upwards. Even trying really hard to quell these prices it might beat inflation, and even if it were a success it would take decades of nominal-growth with negative-real-returns to bring those prices to parity with incomes.

So no, even if “technically maybe?” the answer is still no.