Long term repercussions from Covid-19 what will they be?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am afraid it's here to stay.

The way the feds ran immigration during the 20th century was so detrimental to certain parts of the country and also certain demographics, that provincial involvement is here to stay. Odds are it will increase.

As they say, "from my cold dead hands".

No matter how second rate the alternative has been at it...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No matter how second rate the alternative has been at it...

They've still got about 100 years to prove they can do better!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They've still got about 100 years to prove they can do better!

Not nearly long enough. Second string is, and always will be...

[Doady]

If they stop or reduce immigration as a result of COVID-19, that will be bad news for transit agencies for sure. It will be a major loss of ridership and revenue for systems across Canada with their customer base gone, and governments and taxpayers will have to make some very hard decisions.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by esquire

University College of the North in Manitoba is probably one of the more realistic universities you'll encounter in that regard... it exists basically to give people from Northern Manitoba the opportunity to attend university closer to home, knowing that many if not most would not otherwise go given that it would mean moving hundreds of kilometres to attend.

The university makes no promises that a degree from UCN will allow you to conquer the world or whatever universities typically tend to suggest... but if you want to be a nurse in Flin Flon or a schoolteacher in Wasagamack, UCN will get you there.

I suspect that it's these types of remote universities that are focused on local students and labour market needs that would probably fill out the bottom of the rankings.

There are a lot of colleges today (locally, I can think of Conestoga, Fanshawe, Humber, and Sheridan) that also offer undergraduate degrees in a subset of fields (e.g., BA, B.Comm). These places are often considerably less expensive and/or closer to home, and/or more flexible in their ability to take distance courses. As such they fulfill a very important niche in undergraduate education.

My degrees are from Concordia University in Montreal (note how I didn't list it among the top schools, even though I think it is first-rate in some programs), although my terminal degree is from a joint PhD program (Concordia, McGill, HEC, UQAM). In terms of Business Schools, the John Molson School of Business at Concordia regularly places in the top 5 in Canada, whereas its parent institution never does. Likewise, the Schulich Business School (York) usually ranks ahead of Rotman (UofT). So yes, there is often a discrepancy between a university's global rankings/ratings, and its domain-specific rankings/ratings. University of Waterloo, for instance, is often regarded as the top Engineering school in Canada, whereas UGuelph is often considered tops in Food sciences.

Having said all of this, if you seek a research-based degree (e.g., MSc, PhD), the globally-ranked universities are often the best, because (a) they have the size/clout to attract the best faculty for supervising students, which allows them to (b) design the best research programs, which then allows them to (c) attract top students, who often go on to (d) receive the largest and most prestigious scholarships, and all of this leads to (e) enhanced research productivity by the usual metrics (# publications, quality of publications, impact of publications), which then (f) further enhances the reputation of the institution, reinforcing the entire cycle.

Also, if one seeks a career in academia, it is very hard to get a tenure-track place at a top Canadian university if your terminal degree is from a school that is not globally ranked. And you can forget about getting a campus visit (let alone a placement) at a top American university unless you have pedigree credentials (which boils down to the granting institution of your PhD, AND publications or nearly so in the top-ranked journals, with 'fit' and teaching abilities trailing in third). And that is just to get your foot in the door: be prepared for a grueling 5 years of an extremely competitive process of research and securing publications and grants, while developing and teaching courses and performing service at the departmental, faculty, university and professional levels), if you want to stand a chance at promotion + tenure.

[misher]

Racism is again on the rise across Canada. A lot of racists are using housing and the virus as an excuse to come out.

A Vancouver mother says she is terrified after experiencing a case of COVID-19-related racism and vitriol.

Vi Nguyen, a Vancouver mother of two, was inside the Robson Street London Drugs on March 28 in downtown Vancouver to pick up some iron supplements for her mother.

Her parents, both in their 70s, have been reluctant to leave their East Vancouver home because they live a block away from the convenience store where a 92-year-old Asian man was assaulted last month in what police call a racially motivated hate crime.

As Nguyen left the London Drugs, she stopped to browse in the Tupperware aisle and noticed some people there, including a tall man, and then exited the store.

She was waiting for the traffic light to change so she could cross the street to get to the car where her husband and two small children were waiting — when the man from the Tupperware aisle came up close to her.

“He said, quite calmly, ‘don’t give me your f—-ing disease.’ And it was just so jarring,” she said.

“This deep-seeded hate and racism is coming forward and folks feel emboldened and entitled to share their opinions,” she said.

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-mother-shares-terrifying-ordeal-as-citys-hate-crimes-rise/

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Yes - Double major in French and Spanish Literature (those were different times!). Class of ‘78.

Hey, we're almost the same age. I have a B.Sc in Biology (UPEI) from 1979, supplemented by an MD from Dalhousie (1983) and FRCPC for post graduate specialty medical training (Diagnostic Radiology), also from Dalhousie (1989).

To wade into discussions from the previous page. I stayed at home to go to UPEI for my B.Sc, which, in combination with a full scholarship, and summer jobs every year at the federal Agricultural Research Farm in Charlottetown, meant that I finished my undergraduate degree with a profit, and was able to self fund my entire first year of medical school, before having to start going into debt for the rest of my education. As such, I will certainly vouch for the fact that staying local for your first degree certainly has financial advantages.

Dalhousie Medical School is only middle of the road as far as Canadian schools are concerned. It typically ranks about 8th out of the 16 medical schools in Canada every year. Despite this, graduates of the school have been pretty successful over the years on the national and international stage. Classmates of mine (1983) include the current Dean of Medicine at Dalhousie, the former Chief Medical Officer of Health for Canada, and the current Chairman of the Department of Anaesthesia at the University of Southern California. There are several other of my classmates who have had lesser, but still successful academic careers. So, going to a second tier institution is not necessarily an academic death sentence, although I will agree with MolsonExport that, by and large, attendance at higher quality institutions will look better on your resume.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Hey, we're almost the same age.

So we can start to call you MonctonOldtimer?

[kwoldtimer]

A sign of things to come? Open Text (15,000 employees world-wide) has announced that they will permanently close half of their offices, allowing workers to work from home. Corporate and country offices, including the Waterloo HQ, will remain open.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

A sign of things to come? Open Text (15,000 employees world-wide) has announced that they will permanently close half of their offices, allowing workers to work from home. Corporate and country offices, including the Waterloo HQ, will remain open.

My workplace is looking at ways to enable people to continue working at home (at least part of the time, possibly most of the time) for the long haul, which would result in a significant reduction in leasing space costs. I suspect this is happening across North America.

I'd be curious to know what the numbers look like... yes it's cheaper to not have to lease as much office space, but at the same time there is probably a productivity drop off at home too. I doubt many people do 100% or more of the work at home as compared to when they're in the office. I mean, I'm sure some do, but on the whole there has to be a drop off of some kind. But I guess that the reduction in leasing costs must offset that if companies are seriously pursuing more work at home arrangements

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

My workplace is looking at ways to enable people to continue working at home (at least part of the time, possibly most of the time) for the long haul, which would result in a significant reduction in leasing space costs. I suspect this is happening across North America.

I'd be curious to know what the numbers look like... yes it's cheaper to not have to lease as much office space, but at the same time there is probably a productivity drop off at home too. I doubt many people do 100% or more of the work at home as compared to when they're in the office. I mean, I'm sure some do, but on the whole there has to be a drop off of some kind. But I guess that the reduction in leasing costs must offset that if companies are seriously pursuing more work at home arrangements

Open Text said that 95% of their staff had been working with home, with no impact on productivity.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Open Text said that 95% of their staff had been working with home, with no impact on productivity.

I find that amazing and somewhat hard to believe. But if it's true then I guess we'll be seeing a hell of a lot more working at home.

I wonder what impact that will have on neighbourhoods? If I'm spending nearly all of my waking hours in my suburban area I'm going to want/need a lot more stuff nearby.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by esquire

I find that amazing and somewhat hard to believe. But if it's true then I guess we'll be seeing a hell of a lot more working at home.

I think it has to do with people working longer hours at home. I also find it hard to believe people start being more productive the moment they are home. My entire department has been directed to telework for the last 6-7 weeks and while things get done just like before, I also noticed I receive many emails in the evening, which almost never happened before. Even if I try not to make that an habit, I find that I take less time to eat lunch and end up doing stuff after the regular hours.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by esquire

I find that amazing and somewhat hard to believe. But if it's true then I guess we'll be seeing a hell of a lot more working at home.

I wonder what impact that will have on neighbourhoods? If I'm spending nearly all of my waking hours in my suburban area I'm going to want/need a lot more stuff nearby.

You'll move downtown of course.

Could be my personal bias, but when I did more working from home or remote work, I always wanted to go down to the local coffee shop or pub or whatever for a few hours of work. It's a huge plus to be able to walk to a variety of things, and also the perfect time to run a quick errand during the day when lineups are minimal.

YMMV, but I'd go crazy working from home in a stereotypical suburban environment.

[esquire]

^ At this stage in life that isn't happening for me.

More realistically, if suburban neighbourhoods become office districts, I wonder if we won't see a few more downtown-type amenities popping up in suburbia...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

A sign of things to come? Open Text (15,000 employees world-wide) has announced that they will permanently close half of their offices, allowing workers to work from home. Corporate and country offices, including the Waterloo HQ, will remain open.

That could really devastate some office markets.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

My workplace is looking at ways to enable people to continue working at home (at least part of the time, possibly most of the time) for the long haul, which would result in a significant reduction in leasing space costs. I suspect this is happening across North America.

I'd be curious to know what the numbers look like... yes it's cheaper to not have to lease as much office space, but at the same time there is probably a productivity drop off at home too. I doubt many people do 100% or more of the work at home as compared to when they're in the office. I mean, I'm sure some do, but on the whole there has to be a drop off of some kind. But I guess that the reduction in leasing costs must offset that if companies are seriously pursuing more work at home arrangements

Roughly assuming a 50% drop in office space costs, that leaves a lot of room for absorbing drops in productivity that likely won't ever approach 50%. (And far from everyone is 100% productive in a traditional office setting.)

Though I wonder if over time with more people working at home, with the assumption of somewhat lesser productivity, might not lead to lower pay.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ At this stage in life that isn't happening for me.

More realistically, if suburban neighbourhoods become office districts, I wonder if we won't see a few more downtown-type amenities popping up in suburbia...

I think that's probably more likely.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Though I wonder if over time with more people working at home, with the assumption of somewhat lesser productivity, might not lead to lower pay.

That sounds plausible.

With fewer people working in an office that belongs to a company, I think the idea of being on "company time" and devoting yourself exclusively to working for that firm from 9-5 will start to disappear. When you combine that with lower pay, I think that having a side hustle will start to become more acceptable.

It would be a scenario where you're expected to be in touch with your colleagues at a moment's notice, but you just work project by project, and nobody bats an eye if you're working on some other gig for somebody else in the meantime.

I'll be interested to see how white collar work evolves post-Covid. It was high time for a change in many respects.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

With fewer people working in an office that belongs to a company, I think the idea of being on "company time" and devoting yourself exclusively to working for that firm from 9-5 will start to disappear. When you combine that with lower pay, I think that having a side hustle will start to become more acceptable.

It would be a scenario where you're expected to be in touch with your colleagues at a moment's notice, but you just work project by project, and nobody bats an eye if you're working on some other gig for somebody else in the meantime.

I'll be interested to see how white collar work evolves post-Covid. It was high time for a change in many respects.

I agree we're due for a change but there are so many other things that would need to change in concert. I have so little confidence that it will work out well.

Right now we have houses bid up to the point where 20-30 year mortgages are common, and people are taking out 8 year car loans. We have a lot of holes in our social safety net; even CERB during the pandemic is missing a lot of people. The 9-5ers are a lot of what's keeping the wheels on, and causing corporate money to filter out into the economy.

A lot of workers are down around the poverty line, and real incomes growth has been modest (probably in negative territory when account for durable goods more reasonably). I am skeptical that the productivity gains of more efficient work hours would go to the workers. I think we'd just have people work 30% less, get paid 40% less, and see the net worth of folks like Jeff Bezos go up more.

We already have mountains of debt and will have even more after this. Unfortunately that constrains how much risk governments and individuals can take on.

We also haven't done a good job of managing "always on" work so far. Lots of people feel like they're pestered constantly and they get burned out. I am not sure it is psychologically healthy. I think there are a lot of abstract economic optimizations that are really social net losses and just amount to inhumanely grinding through workers, generating dollars that show up on the balance sheet at the cost of suffering that does not.

I naturally approach things from a technical angle but I think we need a philosophical revolution and deeper understanding of what's important to human well-being, not just another half century of free market optimization that ekes out a bit more productivity by making life crazier.