Just goes to show how little people know about how people die.

I’m just going to point out that trump is only 3 years younger, and has far more risk factors for heart attack and strokes.

Why does everyone seem to think Biden is the one who will die first.

This is directly contradictory to other super obvious evidence. Like the fact that conservative states have much lower life expectancy.

https://www.prb.org/resources/liberal-u-s-state-policies-linked-to-longer-lives/#:~:text=People in U.S. states with,environment%2C according to new research.

I think there’s some tomfoolery with this study.

Nah, we’re far too resourceful to be killed by climate change.

It may take out large chunks of the global population, but we will adapt with technology to be able to still sustain billions of humans.

Humans are social animals, you’re the odd one out here from a social perspective, not that you’re not entitled to that choice but choices have consequences.

I’d suggest just ignoring them. You aren’t going to find a better work environment anywhere else unless you literally have no coworkers.

I’m not sure that’s going to hold true with so many people being effectively inflated into poverty.

It’s going to get worse, a lot worse.

Strategically it doesn’t make sense. It’s better for him to run and lose intentionally, then step down after the loss.

That allows the people to get their hate out, and resets the playing field for the next election cycle when people realize the Conservatives haven’t done shit all to make life more affordable.

The core problems Trudeau is being blamed for aren’t really his fault. They’re global trends happening everywhere, including places with conservative governments.

I can’t wait for the new expansion. It looks fucking amazing.

The person who makes the original assertion needs to prove it, not the one that “asserts something logically stronger”

I can also just point to the fact that we’ve tried a bunch of these policies at a smaller scale, other places have tried a bunch of these policies at various scales, and as far as I know there isn’t a developed country that has declining home prices in cities, or that have managed to keep any of their bigger cities affordable.

No, but It’s still a bad thing to sell something that’s got a negative global effect. This measures that effect.

We sell a very large amount.

You’re using the “no true scotsman” defence right now. There is no other country comparable to the size of Canada in the world other than Russia, so does that mean we can only look at them for policy?

“I don’t know about this place so I’m not going to be able to even consider it’s policies” - That’s an ignorance argument.

Where’s your proof that any of the policies you’re suggesting will work? Do you have a single example of them working elsewhere?

This is just objectively false.

Japan didn’t have single family zoning, anyone could build dense housing anywhere residential in any of the major cities and they absolutely did, and yet it was never affordable. They have massively walkable cities, with great public transportation, and yet… not affordable unless you want to live in a 100 square foot closet that most north Americans couldn’t even fit through the door on.

A bunch of US cities have no zoning and are still not affordable.

Zoning is a slight bottleneck, but it’s not even close to the core problem.

I’m not saying don’t change the zoning, go ahead, but expecting things to become affordable in a few years is an absolute pipe dream.

BC just did it, and developers are just shit talking the policy saying it doesn’t change anything.

Their population hasn’t increased at all in the last 6 years, so how does a lack of land explain the cost increases of housing they’re seeing over that period?

You don’t improve walkability by spreading things out, you actually want the exact opposite.

Speculation is harder if there’s more of something available.

Social housing… I fail to see any connection to the amount of land in a country.

Again, what does having abundance of land have to do with policies like Walkability, Speculation, or Social housing?

Your comparison has no relevance. What does total available landmass have to do with anything related to the policies in question?

Because 99% of the Canada landmass is rural, and a city is a city.

Also, last time I checked, Montreal (the first city mentioned in the article) is an island.

surprising literally no one.

I’m championing land value taxes, but they won’t pass until ownership rates drop another 20-30 percent over the next 20-30 years.

Honestly, the best option for my children (who are still quite young) right now is for me to try to make it worse faster so that we can make such a radical change sooner.

Singapore.