Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Moonbox

  1. ...but you didn't. You posted a Statscan page that had zero data on productivity, a National Post article that specifically concluded against your claim, and a fluff piece from axios.com (whoever they are?). Remote work can be more productive for the right people, in the right situations (particularly for higher-skilled work, where individual output can be objectively measured and compensation is heavily performance-based). There's a reason the private sector soured on 100% remote work in 2023, and that's because training and especially supervision is required for the large swathes of unmotivated, mediocre workers trading their time for money. Nowhere would this dynamic be more present than in the public service administration.
  2. Unsurprisingly, the link you've provided here says absolutely nothing about white men. 🙄
  3. Is that why they're titled: "Remote Work Might Not Be As Productive As Once Thought, New Studies Show" and "Remote workers aren't actually more productive. Will bosses finally call them back this year?" Because they're positive about working from home? First, I didn't say or claim anything about your sources. I spoke generally about the early research, and took issue with your claim that all of the reports/research about remote work show it improves productivity, which is absolutely not true. Second, if we do examine your sources, they don't even support what you're saying. The first is a statscan link that has no data whatsoever on productivity. The second is a fluff-piece from "Axios", whoever that is, that once again provides no data, and the third is an article from the National Post which, (awkwardly for you) concludes: “If remote work boosts productivity in a substantial way, then it should improve productivity performance, especially in those industries where teleworking is easy to arrange and widely adopted, such as professional services, compared with those where tasks need to be performed in person, such as restaurants,” Fernald and his co-authors wrote. But after controlling for pre-pandemic trends by industry, they found little statistical relationship between productivity and the prevalence of remote work since the pandemic. So, let's "recap": You claimed that all of the reports say remote work improves productivity (categorically false), and your junky defense is that you are right because the lame-duck links you provided are more recently dated. 🙄
  4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2023/08/12/remote-work-might-not-be-as-productive-as-once-thought-new-studies-show/?sh=364a73563e7a https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-01-04/2024-year-employers-clamp-down-on-remote-work-not-so-fast There are lots of others, including a good one from the Economist that's locked behind a paywall. Note that nobody is saying remote work is always bad. Most are saying some hybrid model looks best. It actually is. Unless you can track specific, measurable outcomes (like sales, or number of calls handled or something), it's quite hard to objectively measure people in a lot of cases.
  5. What the unions and their people want is typically to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money. 😉 Not true at all. A lot of the early research showed promise, but it wasn't rigorous and was very survey/perception-based (like how productive workers felt they were, and how much longer they were "working" without their commute). Since then a lot of research has been released showing the opposite. Remote work seems to have better results on productivity the higher skilled the work is, and/or the more independently task-oriented, measurable and organized it is within a office. The public sector is not exactly known for its motivated and accountable workforce, so you end up with all of the pitfalls of remote work while lacking some of the biggest benefits (namely more flexible and less costly hires). A public sector union monopoly is probably therefore the least suitable environment for 100% remote.
  6. Fracture it into pieces? I don't think so. The youth vote grows up. An election or two from now, they will no longer be youth, and will all have different priorities. The Reform Party base is the opposite. I just think they both suck, and for the same reason but from different angles.
  7. I think if you are trying to immigrate to a new country, you should behave like a decent human being and be held to a higher standard. If you're found guilty of something like this, you're gone. There are plenty of people who want into Canada who won't sexually assault women, and we're better off having them here than creeps and perverts.
  8. The poll is interesting/informative. What used to be the Liberal's strength has now become its biggest weakness, and a near-decade of cynically neglecting the younger demographics to pander and protect baby boomer's retirement nest eggs has left it in a hole it can't dig itself out of. This is the point of my response. The National Post's "decent summary" was just a review of Angus Reid's professional analysis, but flavored with its own emotionally charged partisan garbage. We were talking about media bias earlier - here you have it in plain sight. I've long considered the Toronto Star and the National Post opposite sides of the same coin - partisan rags both.
  9. IIRC, I already linked this article to you in the other discussion when you were lamenting how biased the media on the "left" is. This is the sort of "journalism" you prefer and find worthy of reposting? It's talking about a poll showing Trudeau is (deservedly) unpopular among younger Canadians and they don't believe in his policy, but characterized as them hating and despising him. Toronto Star, meet your parallel. 😑
  10. I don't know anything about how it works in BC. In Ontario getting your realtor's license was like getting your SmartServe certificate up until a few years ago. It's "harder" now, but only for the former waitresses and bartenders who find grade 10 math challenging. Try an OREA practice exam if you don't believe me. Anyways, dual agency is still allowed in Ontario, as is blind bidding. This would be criminal in other professions, but the realty industry has no fiduciary duty to clients here and calling the regulatory oversight "lax" would be generous. It's harder now, and likely to get harder, but the industry is still a joke. We have something like 100,000 realtors in Ontario, and if we lost half of them nobody would even notice. The most challenging part of the job is the marketing and the hustle of building a clientele. Kudos to diligent, conscientious realtors who rise to the top, but what the majority of them are contributing to the average real-estate transaction is a joke considering the houses practically sell themselves. This is a profession that will see increasing obsolescence over the next 10-20 years - never fully gone, but maturing technology and consumer knowledge will replace what realtors are offering for most basic transactions (basically an MLS listing, lol).
  11. I must admit at this point I have no idea wtf he is talking about. I might have to give you this one. 😐 I would say Real Estate agents have more in common with walmart employees or car salesmen - generally the same levels of education levels and credentials (basically none). It's an easy pivot from a bartending or waitressing job for the highschool-educated. You'd be hard pressed to find a profession with less fiduciary responsibility to clients, and more prone to conflicts of interest than realtors. Never in history has a less qualified group made more money for less work...except maybe the federal public service?
  12. There's no one thing, or even a few things that will solve this problem. A comprehensive rethinking of how our entire economy is working right now needs to be undertaken. Here's a good article on it: https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/the-great-rebuild-seven-ways-to-fix-canadas-housing-shortage/ A summary of some of the items: 1) Curbing immigration, and/or being selective with who we let in based on skills (focusing on trades) 2) Massively expanding and promoting skilled-trades labor, training and education 3) Loosening zoning and density restrictions on PBR housing, lowering ppty taxes on apartment buildings, providing lower-interest rate loans on apartment construction, easing fees and approval times for such projects etc. What needs to be done is far more expansive than this, but I can't summarize it all here.
  13. I'm telling you what they care about, with almost 10 years of direct experience writing and underwriting mortgages (I farm that work out now). Lenders don't use after-tax income because it's too flexible/unreliable to count on, and would require way too much time and effort to parse through tax returns even if it wasn't. Nobody said they shouldn't appreciate, did they? The problem is that the overwhelming (perhaps only) reason to build is short-term speculation and capital appreciation. All of the money, resources and labour go into building housing that fits this dynamic, which also happens to be the types that least help improve housing availability and affordability. Incentives and policy need to be redirected towards building on the lower end - towards purpose-built rentals, and more numerous and utilitarian housing for families, rather than 1-bedroom 700 square foot condos with granite counter tops and heated bathroom floors.
  14. Oh, I see. You didn't claim he "denied" it, you just claimed he "doesn't think it's true". 🙄 Thanks for providing yet another example of why nobody can take you seriously. 👌
  15. Lenders don't care about after-tax income. A $100,000 single-income is treated the exact same as two $50,000 incomes, despite the fact that the dual-income has substantially more after-tax. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which being that actuarial math can't account for the fickleness of tax policy. Why would you undertake a purpose-built rental project when there's far more money and incentives towards short-term speculation? The answer is you don't, and Canada hasn't for decades.
  16. No, he didn't. He said: You decided that this meant he was saying millions of homes being dumped wouldn't affect prices. 🤡 Sure: The quote function is magical, though it's no mystery why you so often refuse to use it.
  17. 1) This wouldn't help you qualify. 2) Even if it did, you'd be better off financially by renting and investing whatever surplus you have elsewhere, far more tax efficiently. Therein lies the problem. Nobody's building rentals for the long-term income streams. They're doing it for short-term speculation and capital appreciation. Something like 25% of private GTA condo rental owners were in the red monthly back in 2018 (worse today, certainly). The rental part of the equation is just to help recoup carrying costs before it's sold. They obviously weren't incentives for the rental market though, were they? They were incentives for speculation and fast money. If you want to incentivize PBR's and affordable family housing, then public policy has to be focused on that. Removing costs and taxes/fees (like removing HST on PBR development), and making passive rental income more competitive with capital gains are good starts, but much more will be needed.
  18. He didn't say that. That's what you imagined he said. Yes he said something about that. The giant, farcical leap of logic you made to transform this comment into a denial of supply and demand mechanics is the problem. As usual, you've invented something stupid to argue with yourself about.
  19. These obvious and truthful facts didn't need stating. That's why they're called obvious. He didn't. You can't quote him saying it either, just like you never again. As usual, you've distilled what he did say down to the most retarded possible interpretation, and elected to argue with yourself about it. 🙄
  20. Wow indeed. You just responded to him mocking you for oversimplifying and stating the obvious, by further insisting that the obvious is, in fact, true! Supply and demand affects prices. Water is wet. The sun is hot. Nobody argued otherwise. 🙄
  21. He did, but he also said the convoy and the protests were illegal. The problem was that there were already enough tools to deal with them. Using the Emergency Act was absolutely ridiculous to end the protests and blockades, when we have decades of experience doing the same thing without.
  22. The editorial stance of a news outlet is not just its "editorials". It's the ideological "stance" of the newspaper - how they frame the news they report, or how much they pay attention and promote certain topics and ideas. What they choose to report (or omit) is also part of that stance.
  23. That's their editorial stance, as I mentioned. Some people are better at recognizing it than others, and sometimes how much you notice it (or it bothers you) is based on how closely your viewpoints align. The better news outlets focus more on delivering real news, and clearly label (and focus less on) the editorials. The difference between, say, a Globe and Mail vs a National Post is clear as soon as you land on their homepage. Right now, the former has the stock market indexes listed right at the top, with mostly neutral news stories and two small (and clearly marked "opinion" pieces at the very bottom. The National Post, on the other hand has devoted half of its front page to editorials, with the most attention and space devoted to how young Canadians "HATE" Trudeau. Both of these newspapers dunk on Trudeau regularly. One is just more serious about it. Radical left woke radical left woke radical left woke...
  24. Most of the bigger networks/media groups are relatively "honest", insofar as their factual reporting is concerned. Whether people call them honest or dishonest has more to do with how they feel about their editorial stance. They (generally) don't allow made-up balogna to be broadcasted. That says very little. Are we going to say that CNN is right-wing when they regularly drag Republican pundits on the air? Hardly.
  25. Unlikely. They were never friendly to the Harper Conservatives, and gushed for Trudeau in the early days. The CBC is not the same sort of leftwing hackjob that the Toronto Star is, but they still do far too much editorializing and pro-Liberal coverage than they should for a public broadcaster. You mean it says more things that you LIKE, and less things that you DON'T LIKE. 🙄
  • Create New...