Great discussion by @mikepmoffatt.bsky.social at @missingmiddleca.bsky.social about the wrong-headed assumption city planners have that seniors without children at home will (should in planners' minds) downsize in their 60s instead of their 80s.
www.missingmiddleinitiative.ca/p/cities-kee...
Not really, as downsizers are typically expected to move to ownership homes, not rental.
And this phenomenon pre-dates the current provincial government.
Today, we examine how cities consistently overestimate the rate at which seniors downsize their homes while simultaneously incentivizing them not to downsize, and how this creates a shortage of family-sized homes for young families.
Watch here: www.youtube.com/watc...
It depends on the location. In percentage terms, taxes and fees. In dollar terms, land.
The vast majority of young Ontarians who do not own a home would like to someday.
My position is an ardently pro-choice one, not one that dictates how people should live, or want to live.
Nowhere do I assume that.
What I assume is that most families want the *option* of homeownership, which is strongly supported by the data.
Yes, I would agree that reducing business subsidies, rather than gutting disability supports, would be a better source of funding.
100% correct. The government absolutely put their thumb on the scale on this.
I've written a number of pieces on this. This is just one example: mikepmoffatt.medium.com/basic-income...
The Ontario government knew about this design flaw, and proceeded anyway, which was incredibly dishonest, IMO. And continues to be, as these "results" are presented.
It would be like an airline testing whether or not they could shrink their seats, and having everyone in the sample group be under 5'2".
The pilot suffered from a massive design flaw. By design, it excluded people who would have been harmed by the reduction!
So it can't tell you anything about the results over the general population, as the sample group was cherry picked.
New piece in the Toronto Star from Cara and me, on research showing how the middle-class housing crisis negatively impacts all of us, not just those priced out of homes.
Read here:
Sure, though the deal we have is a rounding error, so on that basis alone it's simply a shrug emoji.
I can't think of a single change in the last 50+ years that involved the removal of disability supports that led to the disabled being better off.
Any GLBI at a fiscal cost that governments would even entertain would involve a slashing, not an increasing, of supports for PWDs.
That isn't true, and we saw that with the Ontario pilot, where benefits were substantially cut, even relative to the meager status quo, to make the program affordable.
The current deal with China is a rounding error in terms of the number of vehicles. Any move towards assembly would come in later deals.
No. It would make it much worse, particularly for persons with disabilities.
If Canada isn’t in a recession, why does it feel like one for so many?
@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social and Sabrina Maddeaux unpack how rising GDP and record profits can coexist with food bank lines, housing crises and a shrinking middle class.
🎧Listen at: youtu.be/SVq_1ap4lCo?...
#EconSky #CdnPoli
I'm old enough to remember when we wanted to restrict the Japanese from the Canadian market. Now they make up more than 3/4 of all assembly in Ontario.
New episode! Today, we explore how, in Canada, rising GDP and record profits, and explosive stock market returns can coexist with massive food bank lines, housing crises, and a shrinking middle class.
Watch here: www.youtube.com/watc...
No. At least, I don't think it gets at the heart of the demand problem.
Again, I studied 40+ years of federal thinking on this in my previous role, and it's been 40 years of the same reports and same broken thinking over and over.
That small business capital is a supply problem rather than a demand problem.
I can't tell you how many reports I read at ISED on this, not one of which ever mentioned the demand side of the equation.
It is, yeah. You should hear some of pitches I've received in my career.
I think governments have, and continue to, look at this problem entirely the wrong way, and it's led to decades' worth of bad policy.
We need to change our thinking.
Again, I think the focus on "banks" is the problem. They're not the best place to get SME capital, IMO.
In my brief tenure for the feds, I probably read 40 years worth of reports, all which kept making the same, untested, assumptions.
As someone who has been on both sides of this, I found it much easier to find capital as a small business person than it is finding profitable investments (in either debt or equity).
And I know small businesses report they can't get capital, but it isn't because capital is lacking, IMO. It's because nobody wants to loan at 3% a year for 5 years to a company with a 15-30% chance of default.
