Renegade

No it is not your fault that Canadian society is predominantly white. What is racist is to advocate a "keep it white" policy under the guise of protecting Canadian culture. Canada has had a policy welcoming immigrants for decades. That "successful established society" you refer to, was built in large part by the hard work, skills, and sometimes the wealth of immigrants. Now, I'm not discounting that the established population also contributed to its success, but to deny the part that immigrants played is sheer blindness. "invade"????? Leafless, these pople didn't invade, they were invited by the Canadian government. Most were not wealthy and made considerable sacrifices to come to Canada. They came here to better their life and in the process bettered the country. The Government that invited them, was a government established Canadians CHOSE through their electoral process. So if you are not happy with the outcome, blame your fellow Canadians. It is ironic that you are "sick and tired of cultural malcontent and discrimination", because virtually every one of your posts is dripping with it. Don't you even see a hint or racism in your statement above?

In other words, you're saying let's sell housing only to whites to preserve the purity of our society. Gee, do you think maybe they should have had that policy before whites came to North America and forcibly took property from the majority native population? I see you chose to ignore the question I put to you. Of course, I understand it is an uncomfortable question for you to answer. I'm advocating for a country where one's cultural background or race s not relevant to the rights they are assigned. If people of the same background want to cluster together in gettos, let them. Why not, whites do. If they want to buy overpriced houses, let them. I'd happily sell to anyone who would pay my price, black, brown, white or any other colour.

So Leafless, you're telling me that when you sold your three previous houses you restricted the offers you would accept to "white Canadians", and if a higher offer came from an immigrant you would not accept it? If you did restrict it to "whites only" it would be an act of sheer idiocy on your part, if you didn't then it is an act of sheer hypocrisy on your part now to condemn people for selling to immigrants. So are you an idiot or a hypocrite?

It was obvious to me. I wasn't sure if it was obvious to you. There are only two ways to make more money. Increase revenue or reduce costs. If their plan to increase revenue by changing the cashiers roles didn't work, can you guess how they were going to reduce costs? (hint: it won't be by pulling out successful self-checkouts)

Nocrap, if a cure or better treatment for your grandson's condition was available, but not covered by the public healthcare system, would you pay to cure or treat him?

margrace, perhaps I'm missing your point. What exactly is it? That fire protection and ambulances are necessary? I concede that they are. They point we are debating is who provides them, who pays for them, and the sense of entitlement some people feel for "free" services. If there was a $100 charge each time you called the fire department, would that stop you from calling them if you needed them? Is $100 a reasonable cost for the use of those services?

cybercoma, it is true that most companies will make considerable efforts to retrain and place diplaced employees into new positions. Afterall the company has made an investment in this employee it would like to retain. This of course presumes that either there were positions which were open, or the company thought it could grow their revenue by moving the employees to new roles. Surely your company with 10% more coverage on teh sales floor, is also expecting at least 10% more sales revenue, otherwise why bother investing in self-checkouts.

I was not disputing a conclusion that said there are cultural clashes in some cities in Canada. Living in the GTA I am well aware of that. Let me quote some of what you have previously claimed: Do you have any evidence or statistics which prove this? So far all we have is your claim that you've walked around rich neighbourhoods and seen a lot of non-whites. Perhaps you think this is "COMMON KNOWLEDGE". If it is I challenge you to show me one newspaper article confirming this. I live next door to Oakville. Statiistically Oakville has the highest average family income in Canada. I can tell you that the neighbourhoods I've seen are overwhelming white. Many 1 million+ homes changes hands, and they are being sold to buyers who are of varying racial backgrounds, however many of the buyers are white. There is no shortage of lower priced houses in GTA. The buyers simply have to temper their expectations. Frankly, if you think that the houses are overpriced, and that foreigners are buying overpriced houses, then you should be happy others are buying them, for when prices crash, it will be they who lose money. What I detect in your statements is resentment and jealousy of people from other races who can afford houses which you cannot.

Yes, I have a good education. And yes, my education was subsidized by the taxpayer, however, my parents contributed more than enough in taxes to cover my education cost. Yes I have fire protection. And I more than pay for it each year via my real estate taxes. If you didn't have fire protection or abmulances in 1974 and you paid for them via your taxes, that's great, but you did it to benefit yourselves and your community at the time, not for my benefit.

I agree with you. The reason for the technology is to eliminate positions and improve productivty. Your reason for resisting the change is borne out of self-interest. The vast majority of the population will also look to their self-interest and use the devices to realize lower wait-times, and eventually lower product costs. People seem anxious to protect part-time service jobs like they are some essential part of the economy. They are not. The sooner we get rid of them the better. Let's use people for the things only people can be used for and not the things which can be done better by machines. When I was a kid, I earned money delivering newspapers, mowing lawns and shovelling snow. In the last 15 years, no kid has come to my house and offered to do those things. These are all now taken over by contracting companies. Personally, I'd much rather support the kid down the street, and at lower cost to me, but it doesn't seem like they want the work. I guess our society has become too wealthy and kids today don't care about doing that kind of work. However, it does seem that if people are looking at ways to earn extra income, there are plenty of ways out there.

margrace, somehow many retired people have the impression that they have "earned" free healthcare based upon the taxes they previously paid. This is a fallacy. Any taxes previously paid, went to fund healthcare and other social programs which were provided at the time the taxes were paid. Further for most of the retired population, the bulk of the taxes were paid between the 70s to 90s. During that period, the taxes collected DID NOT even cover the cost of the social programs provided. The govenment irresponsibly took on horrendous debt to make up the difference. This is a legacy which we who are still working are still paying for. So when the retired generation thinks it is owed something it makes me cringe. If anything it is the retired generation which owes the current working population something to compensate it for the debt it left us to pay off. Now I recognize that as people age they have a greater need for healthcare, so I don't dispute the need. However, I very much dispute the justification is valid.

The stunning part of your posts Leafless, is that you spew racism and religious bigotry in virtually every sentence, yet are too blind to see it in yourself. You draw all kinds of radical racial conclusions, and provide ZERO evidence to back your claims other than your say so.

Fine, let's see what you have from other sources then.

So? How does that prove that wealthy foreigners are driving up house prices? BS? Why, because you say so? Provide some evidence that it is BS. See the following quote: The Fraser Institute: Immigration Policy So you don't think Whites are immigrants as well? The only difference between whites and non-whites is when they or their ancestors arrived. I'm failing to understand how an immigrant's religion and culture is destroying yours. And what exactly are "Canadian beliefs and traditions" Again do you have an evidence of this? So you think that ethnic owned business are only contributing if they employ whites? Do the taxes they pay count for anything? Do the goods and services they purchase and drive the economy count for anything? Apparently not to you. Absolutely you and other Canadians had a say. The proper term for it is an "election". People take on or should take on a level of debt they are comfortable with. If they overextend themselves and put themselves at risk if interest rates go up, then they deserve what they get. It's a free world. If you don't want to use quotes no one is going to make you. I'm giving you some feedback as a reader that it would be much easier to read your post if you used them. BTW, there is no or negligible difference in bandwidth if you used the provided quote facility.

What I'd really like is for the government to minimize its interference in my life. Yes, I'd like to pay less taxes. I'd much rather decide myself what I do with my money then have the government decide for me. I'm ok if the government has to cut services to do so. Yes good healthcare is necessary. But it requires change in order to be both viable, give people choices, and be equitable for those who are asked to pay for it.

I know none were let go. How did they remain cashers if they moved to the sales floor? Did they become only part-time cashiers? The ones who weren't adaptable remained cashiers, the ones who were adaptable moved to the sales floor. So, as I said, the net was that there were less cashiers. Others had to get different jobs.

I know none were let go. How did they remain cashers if they moved to the sales floor? Did they become only part-time cashiers?

Maybe for now. Both the manufacturerers and the retailers have incentive to fix these initial problems

Leafless, it is an stunning and unsubstantiated leap to conclude based upon a statement "There's definitely interest from international buyers, still from the UK, northern Europe and other countries," that homes are mainly sold to wealthy foreigners. Unless you have something more definiative, this is pure BS. I'm from GTA and there are plenty non-whites everywhere. Unlike you, I don't see it as a problem, and I don't consider non-whites any different than Canadian. What exactly are you contending? That we are letting in too many immigrants and that they are driving up property values? In my view, if we are accepting immigrants who have the wealth to buy expensive properties, this can only be beneficial to the community, as that same wealth will spur investment in the local economy. You are quite right that low interest rates won't last forever, however neither are they are likely to reach the levels of the 80s. Part of the reason for high house prices is low rates and any increase in rates will also temper house prices. You are correct that some people will live beyond their means. But that is no different a situation than has always been the case. I'm neither. I think there are plenty of great jobs in Canada for those who are industrious, talented, and hardworking enough to pursue them. One other thing, I would appreciate if you can use the quote facility. It will make both your and my life much easier.

How do you substitiate your statemetn that these homes are "mainly being sold to wealthy foreigners"? The article made no such claim. Housing affordablility is the best its been in decades. So why is it they can't afford their own place?

No doubt there will be less cashier posiitons. The only ones who need be worried are those who are not adaptable enough to take on a different role.

For now I doubt that there will be charges to use manned checkouts. The goal of retailers is to get customers to be familiar and comfortable with using self-checkouts. No doubt they would like to offer incentives to use self-checkouts but unions would object to this. With time as the public becomes comfortable, there will no doubt be a "service charge" to use a manned checkout. This has been done for gas-stations (via the higher price), this has been done for banking (via service fees), and I can't see why this same model wouildn't be extended to retail. The net of it is that in the future, if you value going to a "full-service" cashier, you should have to pay the additional cost. Generally self-serve checkouts are not completely unmanned. There is one cashier who oversees a number of checkouts. They will resolve any errors or issues. Right now, bucause of the public's unfamiliarity with the technology, one person will oversee only a couple of self-serve checkouts. With time, that number will increase as the public becomes comfortable and the take-up increases.

Self-serve checkouts will do for retailing what ATMs did for banking. They add value by allowing more checkouts and thus reducing people's wait time. This continues a trend which has extended from gas-stations to banks. I envisioin a day, where there will be a touchscreen at evey table in a resturant where you can place your order. Will it eliminate jobs? Absolutely, and that's the way it should be. We shouldn't be using expensive labour to replace something which can be done more efficiently by automation. All the more reason why people should be constantly upgrading their skills to make sure they are not redundant.

From where did you draw the conclusion that governmetn debt was excluded from this figure? This Article seems to peg the net worth at $146,900 a person. I'm assuming this excludes government assets and debt.

That does seem to prove the point that those who are above-average WILL rise to the top, without any need for AA. I've already pointed out some of the negatives of AA. If Jews can rise because of more vigalance when it comes to discrimmination against Jews, perhaps we would be wise to focus our efforts on more vigilance against discrimmination against all groups instead of programs like AA.