It’s just under 200K a house which seems pretty reasonable for mobilizing construction crews, materials, and potentially infrastructure for 117 homes.

If you’re gonna build me a quality home for $11,450 (22,900,000/2000) with electric/plumbing/sewage/natural gas/internet service I’d be happy to buy some off you!

Don’t know where you got the idea that houses are super low cost things, but I’d do my best to immediately buy any newly built home for 200K. That’s like the cost of a permanent parking spot in some Ontario cities.

seems like a decent price for Saskatoon homes

Depends on where you are financially. If you have a fixed rate mortgage that is getting renewed in the next year or two - you’ll see a big jump in payments if you aren’t able to extend your mortgage.

If you’re still on variable, no real change.

If you’re renting, rents will continue to climb if interest rates go up or plateau - but don’t ever expect prices to come back down, if you’re lucky they’ll stagnate for a year but that’s unlikely because landlords are greedy shits.

Businesses are cutting jobs as there’s less money in the market (all going to shelter and food plus general Greed of making less people do the same/more as a larger group), so if you’re unfortunate enough to have a mortgage that’s renewing soon and you lose your job and EI can’t cover the difference, you’ll probably have to sell or lose your home… And still be unable to afford rent.

This has been the goal of every level of government for a while, municipalities refused density, provinces refused to prioritize any public housing (Doug in Ontario is sitting on 22 Billion as education, healthcare, and housing are floundering, so he gifts developers billions in prime Greenbelt lands for single detached millionaire homes) and the Feds can’t really do much with provincial and municipal governments running interference - aside from use their own central banks to get essentially interest free loans and build federal public housing. Which they should but certainly aren’t.

Oh, and the Bank of Canada is crushing developers with interest rates so they’re cancelling or pausing projects because they’re unprofitable with these interests rates - or they’re colluding and holding us over a barrel because our government cannot successfully accomplish anything without overpaying a private business who underpay their workers to do it for them.

If you keep your job and bought a home within your means, it’ll be lean times but not impossible to overcome. Don’t be afraid to use food banks or anything to keep yourself afloat. Times are tough af and there is little relief on the horizon.

Canadian farmers are notorious for using TFW as free labour, often underpaying, overworking, and threatening TFW’s with deportation or other punishments while reaping huge profits and refusing to hire local workers.

Everything our government does Lib or Con has the goal of extracting value for wealthy interests. People need to start paying attention and voting as progressively as possible.

We are leaving so much quality of life on the table (higher wages, holidays, benefits) by not holding our government accountable for anything, and somehow think not paying attention to boring politics is the answer.

There’s the inconvenient fact that housing is way more provincial and municipal than federal. The feds can’t (and shouldn’t) be able to tell a town/city what they can or can’t do as per the rules of our democracy.

That being said, the Feds should be building their own public/rent geared to income housing.

One of the biggest hurdles is NIMBY voters who alway turn up and vote against density and constantly jam the system regardless of need - and those who need affordable housing generally don’t show up to vote.

If the feds build their own housing, or blast provincial/local governments who are preventing the proliferation of Federally funded housing the narrative should hopefully flip.

Currently its the spider-man meme of feds, premiers, and municipal governments pointing at each other as the source of housing inequality - and all of them are correct. But it’s lack of public understanding that allows the inaction to continue.

This isn’t something that needs to be profitable, it’s fulfilling the basic role of government working for the people and giving them value.

This would also put pressure on developers collectively refusing to build due to costs. If you’re not developing, the land moves to the feds to be developed instead.

Some things need to exist outside of profit seeking.

I do believe some Canadian industries should be subsidized by private interests because they’re just selling our own resources back to us, and they should pay for the privilege (while still receiving some profits). Telecom, utilities, energy, farms over certain capacities etc.

News Probaby shouldn’t be one. I’m more than happy with government funded news so long as its independent of government and held to a higher standard than “entertainment” like we have with our neighbours to the south. This forces private news to compete with a competent news source, and it’s not like the business model for news has really changed by much, selling ad space next to information, or offering subscriptions is as old as information sharing.

Good bot

While I haven’t read the full report, I’ve never seen an assessment review the entire supply chain that is usually vertically integrated.

“costs go up” isn’t some event that happens only because of drought/war/etc. It’s true that resources are not always equally available, and prices can reflect this.

But when a supply chain is nearly entirely vertically integrated within 3 monopolies (oligopoly), there are plenty of costs that can be raised just because.

If there are 5 steps in the supply chain from farm to shelf, and the farm costs go up, every step in the supply chain can raise costs. If someone owns the entire supply chain, there are now 5 opportunities for someone to pay themselves, funded by the end consumer retail price.

It’s painfully obvious that the lack of competition is encouraging unmitigated greed. They’re using half assed myopic “studies” to suggest record profits aren’t because of Greed since the last stage of the supply chain isn’t exclusively where the gouging happens as if it’s the only place profits can occur.

Danielle and other Conservatives believe they exist in the superposition of “I can tell others what to do, but others are never allowed to tell me what to do”

Damn, nearly 14,000km^2 burned already

Causes of all fires: Lightning, 65 per cent; humans (deliberate and accidental) 29 per cent; unknown, 6 per cent.

I believe the union reps (heads?) can accept a contract/offer and people go back to work - but the contract is still voted on by the union.

If the government offer is rejected by the union, the strike will resume.

This system prevents having the entire union vote every time something is offered, and helps encourage that best offers are tendered so employers can’t just force hundreds of votes increasing wage offers by pennies at a time etc.

There is potential for soft or corrupt union leaders to accept a bad deal in the hopes that enough striking workers need to work again/don’t care enough to vote etc and accept the worse deal. But if they become known for accepting bad deals, they will likely be ousted and replaced with someone who better represents the union members.

What’s even weirder is this article is entirely devoid of actual information.

It did not mention anything about the strike aside from its impact on shipping and freight.

Nothing on what the workers wanted to accomplish, nothing on what actually resolved the strike, nothing about the strike at all.

Just some stats on how many containers need to be processed, how little rail cargo there was compared to this time last year, and some talk about maintaining Canada’s reputation for receiving and distributing goods from our ports.

I’d love if any mainstream news actually had a pro-worker agenda and celebrated the formation of unions, and the benefits of collective bargaining.

Feels like the classic neoliberal plan of one step forward, two steps back.

Make a plan that sounds like it can solve the problem, but then add a bunch of ‘well intentioned’ rules (space requirements around a home, requirements for dedicated parking etc) and the new opportunities are entirely lost.

This article talks about converting a single detached to a multiplex would require 4x the empty space between property lines that a single detached would. This prevents conversions, and forces developers to acquire expensive land, bulldoze the existing home to build another structure that will have to be smaller than the original home, to fit more people on the same land space in smaller dwellings. It’s impossible to drive living costs down when replacing single detached with the missing middle costs 5x to get 2-3x the units.

It makes sense to have rules and regulations with building, but government seems to be more than happy to make a big paradigm shift, while doing everything they can to stimy their own attempt at progress.