National Economy

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You are talking about a massive amount of money. Most of those above us have much higher tax rates. Are you willing to pay 15% GST to pay for social housing? All this does is put housing out of reach further for middle class young people and give those not working or working with large familes access to cheaper substandard housing.

This requires a long term perspective. I am not talking about address this overnight. This is the kind a thing that will take a decade or two to resolve.

Some social housing is going to have to be operated at a loss.

When we talk about the working poor, I think we are talking about publicly owned housing that should be built and rented out on a a cost-recovery basis. Over a 30-40 year period that should not require any subsidy.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The constraints on social housing construction are the same as private sector construction: land shortages, labour shortages, logistics challenges, NIMBYs.

Yes. The difference is stability. If you could rent a place where you were assured your rent would not go up more than the rate of inflation and as long as you payed your bills and behaved yourself you were never going to be evicted that would provide people with a degree of stability that many are missing.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Yes. The difference is stability. If you could rent a place where you were assured your rent would not go up more than the rate of inflation and as long as you payed your bills and behaved yourself you were never going to be evicted that would provide people with a degree of stability that many are missing.

I am not sure how that is significantly different than a rent controlled apartment.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by casper

This requires a long term perspective. I am not talking about address this overnight. This is the kind a thing that will take a decade or two to resolve.

Some social housing is going to have to be operated at a loss.

When we talk about the working poor, I think we are talking about publicly owned housing that should be built and rented out on a a cost-recovery basis. Over a 30-40 year period that should not require any subsidy.

Yes. The difference is stability. If you could rent a place where you were assured your rent would not go up more than the rate of inflation and as long as you payed your bills and behaved yourself you were never going to be evicted that would provide people with a degree of stability that many are missing.

I know this kind of works in places with huge government largess in general but in the North American context it ends up hugely costly, rent strikes, no pride in ownership and rampant crime. Why should the government be in charge of any of this?

Many cities have lots of government owned lots in prime locations. Just upzone these sell them on the open market and use the revenues to maybe lower development charges. Of course the easiest response is not bringing in millions of new people.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I know this kind of works in places with huge government largess in general but in the North American context it ends up hugely costly, rent strikes, no pride in ownership and rampant crime. Why should the government be in charge of any of this?

Many cities have lots of government owned lots in prime locations. Just upzone these sell them on the open market and use the revenues to maybe lower development charges. Of course the easiest response is not bringing in millions of new people.

It bothers me that my employer the federal government is mandating that I need to work 3 days a week in office starting in September and is spending big money on re-configuring offices and even renting out new spaces because of the mandate. That money should be spent on housing and also the office spaces should become housing.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It bothers me that my employer the federal government is mandating that I need to work 3 days a week in office starting in September and is spending big money on re-configuring offices and even renting out new spaces because of the mandate. That money should be spent on housing and also the office spaces should become housing.

Bothers the Canadians who think it should be five days a week too.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Bothers the Canadians who think it should be five days a week too.

Also bothers the retailers and restauranteurs in downtowns all across this country barely hanging on to their businesses because all their former customers are eating ham sandwiches in their kitchen at lunchtime, wearing bathrobes and slippers rather than stimulating the economy downtown (like they were intended to do).

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It bothers me that my employer the federal government is mandating that I need to work 3 days a week in office starting in September and is spending big money on re-configuring offices and even renting out new spaces because of the mandate. That money should be spent on housing and also the office spaces should become housing.

We’ll have even more money left to spend on housing if we cut some jobs in the federal workforce and rein in public service pay increases. Heck, we could get rid of the public service altogether and get rid of our military too. That might actually put a dent in the housing crisis. Short of that this is a multi trillion dollar problem that government finances can’t solve, despite all the press conferences trying to convince you otherwise.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Also bothers the retailers and restauranteurs in downtowns all across this country barely hanging on to their businesses because all their former customers are eating ham sandwiches in their kitchen at lunchtime, wearing bathrobes and slippers rather than stimulating the economy downtown (like they were intended to do).

So the worker has to spend more money to commute and work downtown (and give up the convenience/savings of WFH), and companies they work for have to spend more money renting out more office space, while increasing pollution that effects everyone - all to prop up retailers and restaurants? Why is it the workers/companies responsibility? Why should they foot the bill and treat them like a charity?

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Also bothers the retailers and restauranteurs in downtowns all across this country barely hanging on to their businesses because all their former customers are eating ham sandwiches in their kitchen at lunchtime, wearing bathrobes and slippers rather than stimulating the economy downtown (like they were intended to do).

Intended isn't correct. Nobody designed anything, a ecosystem of: work downtown > therefore shop and eat downtown, is basically naturally occurring.

Eventually the fish aren't there to catch, the buffalo aren't there to hunt, and the office workers aren't there to sell to. So we adapt.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Intended isn't correct. Nobody designed anything, a ecosystem of: work downtown > therefore shop and eat downtown, is basically naturally occurring.

Eventually the fish aren't there to catch, the buffalo aren't there to hunt, and the office workers aren't there to sell to. So we adapt.

My use of the word "intended" was meant to be ironic, but, the point remains that without workers returning to the core, a sea change will have to occur regarding the importance and the role of downtowns in our urban ecosphere. Downtowns used to be the hearts of our urban communities. If workers can work from home, and get their comestibles from suburban big box developments, will they ever visit the cores again??? What is the function of a downtown in the post COVID 21st century???

What do we want our cities to be???

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It bothers me that my employer the federal government is mandating that I need to work 3 days a week in office starting in September and is spending big money on re-configuring offices and even renting out new spaces because of the mandate. That money should be spent on housing and also the office spaces should become housing.

You poor thing.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It bothers me that my employer the federal government is mandating that I need to work 3 days a week in office starting in September and is spending big money on re-configuring offices and even renting out new spaces because of the mandate. That money should be spent on housing and also the office spaces should become housing.

Conversion is mostly unfeasible and where possible is almost as expensive and time consuming as building from scratch. Federal lands without buildings on them are much more plentiful in most cases.

Government workers need to be back in the office 5 days a week. It has defintely been a failure of prodcutivity. Unsurprising given the lack of supervision and motivation of much of the public service.

[Acajack]

To back up Moncton's point, public service workers aren't just *any* office workers. They are workers whose salaries are paid for by everyone, and there is no choice in providing financial support for the public service. It's an obligation through our taxes.

The businesses located downtown (or anywhere else) are of course part of the collective money train that pays for public sector salaries.

As such we're all part of a big interconnected web that is a diverse economy, and should all be conscious that the money that pays for our standard of living didn't just magically fall out of the sky.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As such we're all part of a big interconnected web that is a diverse economy, and should all be conscious that the money that pays for our standard of living didn't just magically fall out of the sky.

Sadly there are more than a few people on the left wing of the political spectrum that subscribe to this form of magical thinking.

"And, the budget will balance itself....."

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Sadly there are more than a few people on the left wing of the political spectrum that subscribe to this form of magical thinking.

"And, the budget will balance itself....."

Hey I am on the (centre-)left and even I know that!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Hey I am on the (centre-)left and even I know that!

You are an exemplar of the rational left. I am referring to the irrational left that thinks money is free and falls like manna from heaven.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Conversion is mostly unfeasible and where possible is almost as expensive and time consuming as building from scratch. Federal lands without buildings on them are much more plentiful in most cases.

You sure that isn’t your Ottawa bias? In my city, there’s pretty much zero unused Fed land within the urban perimeter. (One big Federal office building, two armories.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You are an exemplar

of the rational left. I am referring to the irrational left that thinks money is free and falls like manna from heaven.

Ooh I am an exemplar. Can I get a pin for my blazer for that?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It bothers me that my employer the federal government is mandating that I need to work 3 days a week in office starting in September and is spending big money on re-configuring offices and even renting out new spaces because of the mandate. That money should be spent on housing and also the office spaces should become housing.

No offense pal, but if I were your boss I'd tell you to either fix your attitude or go find another job in Timmins.

Just because you can concentrate on one thing for longer without interruption at home doesn't make you more productive. For Executives to do their job effectively they need to know everything that is going in their organization, and that includes how their biggest expense (their staff) are spending their time - trust has nothing to do with it. If you're remote and your competitor is in-office, your competitor is going to win, because their executives know their business way better than you know yours, and will be able to make much higher leverage changes to improve efficiency, fix major problems, grow, etc.

The federal government doesn't have a competitor, but that's not an excuse to not operate efficiently.

[acottawa]

WFH works for a very specific type of job with clear inputs and outputs and limited interaction with colleagues required. Translators for example, but government translators worked from home long before the pandemic.