Moonbox

I would define them as the people who aren't easily replaceable. Considering the near-zero vacancy for federal public service positions we've seen over the last decade, this generally doesn't apply to them. They have workloads they've negotiated via CBA through a militant public sector union, and anything but the bare minimum is wasted effort. High performers are stifled by seniority mandates and rigid compensation, and thus the best and brightest move on. What's left is the mediocre to bad, and it's almost statistically impossible fire the bad ones. 🤷‍♂️ It's no wonder we waste so much money on private consultants.

Evidently there were, because I clicked on it, read it, and cited it. 🤡 It's a matter of tone and repetition for angry babies like him. Would you have read that article and come here, like him to rant about how disgusting and racist Canada is, or do you think maybe you would have offered a bit more nuance and thoughtfulness? For the record, I'm firmly opposed to affirmative action as it's been implemented, and think it's only got worse over time.

Higher skilled than what? Let's not confuse post-secondary education status as "higher skilled", if that's what you mean. Do we call the social studies post-grads working for "Social Development Canada" higher-skilled?

I'm saying the same thing I said from the beginning, days ago: Surveys of employees on how productive they say they are when working remote isn't an accurate gauge of actual their productivity. It's an indication of which work arrangement they prefer. You're citing a "report" by this tiny team of post-pubescent tech-bloggers: who apparently surveyed 1000 "business leaders" on how productive they think they are, and concluded that the ones who are fully remote tended to believe they are more productive. I can only imagine the titans of industry that responded to their survey. That's the data you're relying on? 🤣

Oh boy! Employees self-reporting that "Oh yes, definitely. I get way more work done in my pyjamas at home when my boss can't keep an eye on what I'm doing." It's almost like we've already been over this: So here we are, come full-circle, with you regurgitating exactly what I'd originally criticized, and still offering no actual data on productivity. 😆 He says, after making a fool out of himself once again.

So a white person with a penis, who self-identifies as non-binary, could still meet the criteria, as could a white female, or a white transgender man, correct? There's certainly a lot to dissect in a job posting like this, and (IMO) much to criticize, but what can we conclude from it? Does this show that Canada is a "disgusting racist country", or have the various (mostly) well-meaning institutions got their priorities so absurdly mixed-up that they're becoming dysfunctional. It looks to me like the University of New Brunswick is trying so hard to be progressive that they've bent their spines past breaking and made a mockery of themselves and what they're trying to achieve. That's a very different discussion than "racist against white men", isn't it? 😑

The statscan page has literally no data on productivity - nothing whatsoever. Thanks for highlighting your bullshit in first sentence of what will assuredly be another bloviating ramble that won't be worth reading. I'll refer you to my previous response:

It provided zero data on productivity - literally zero. *sigh* indeed. 🙄

I don't think you did. I know you did. I clicked your link and read it. It didn't even remotely say what you claim it did. I "did my own research", and it made you look like a clown who reposts links he hasn't even read. 🙃

I clicked on the link you posted saying NB University wouldn't hire white men. I read the whole thing. Not only were white men not even mentioned, but they didn't even say they were preferential to minorities. The only preference they listed was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. Are you trying to look stupid? 🙄 Did little Zeitgeist get fooled again by a rage-bait title that he didn't even bother reading before reposting it here like a zombie? Seems like it!

...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.

Unsurprisingly, the link you've provided here says absolutely nothing about white men. 🙄

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. 🙄

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😑

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).

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?

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.

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.

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. 👌

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.