That was my thought too. Wonder what the timeframe was because if it’s data collected over multiple years you’d expect to see an overrepresentation of vehicles that were sold through that whole period while models that get discontinued, or launched in that timeframe would be underreported. Also maybe some demographics, like was the high number of S-10 while it was available new and presumably driven by people that recently purchased those new vehicles, or is it 10+ years after it stopped being sold when it’s the old farm shitbox or a young guys first truck.

I think there’s a middle ground there, though it depends on the kind of game. Something like a first person shooter is a non-starter on iPhone to me due to the smaller display and touchscreen controls. Something like a turn based strategy I like better on mobile because being able to tap through commands and menus is nicer than a controller to me. Maybe also a stronger push for some of the games to have cross platform saves, like being able to play on my Apple TV at home, but also do some grinding a few minutes at a time while I’m out.

Really, I think Apple TV is where the real gaming potential is. It might not match consoles in power, but it’s also in a lot of households that might not have bought a console but will buy a couple good games on Apple TV.

My wife wanted to upgrade so we both got new Series 9 this year. Her Series 3 went to her mom as an upgrade to a Fitbit, and I figure I’ll keep wearing mine at work until it gets smashed or otherwise dies. All of our Macs are well past macOS support, but no real plans to upgrade until an old one actually dies, or some killer feature prompts an upgrade.

On the other hand, providing capital increases the value of the labour applied. Giving a tradesperson and additional capital might mean they can afford better tools that allow them to work more quickly, accomplish more per hour of labour and therefore be able to charge more for that hour while the customer simultaneously pays less for the task being done. The tradesperson is then able to pay back that capital plus some gains for the person providing the capital. Everybody wins, the investor gets more money than they started with, the tradesperson earns more after paying back the investment than if they hadn’t taken it in the first place, and the customer gets a lower rate for the tasks that need to be performed.

The problem is when we let that scale up to the point of there being people with essentially endless funds to spend on things like mega-yachts and ridiculous mansions, while others aren’t even getting their basic needs met. The answer to me isn’t removing the benefits of capital income at all, but adding some progressive taxation to keep the net income more modest, and maybe some stronger/target employment regulation so the capital holders aren’t getting rich off labour that’s supported by government social programs.

I think it’s important not just for the consumers benefit but also the employees working in that industry. If it’s purely a profit motive then you get things like poor wages and working conditions where the employer can use “competition” as an excuse to keep wages low and reduce overhead by not prioritizing things like safety and environmental sustainability. When people have the option of working for a crown corporation that does prioritize safety, sustainability, and good work environments then private industry has to be able to offer comparable compensation and work environments to the crown corporation. The crown corp has an inherent advantage of being able to operate in a profit neutral manner, while the private industry has to be able to actually do something better than the crown corp to be competitive.

This is my answer to pretty much everything. Create a consistent baseline both in terms of consumer services/pricing and for employee work environment/compensation. Then let private industry compete with that crown corp. perfect example, the state of telecommunication services in Sask. Sasktel offers cell, internet and cable TV services while private companies compete along side them. The private companies have to actually be competitive(or at least convince customers that they are) with Sasktel if they want to capture any significant market share. They’re also competing with Sasktel to hire employees into similar roles, so they have to provide competitive wages and work environments. Prices in Sask tend to be lower than elsewhere due to Sasktel’s presence.

I don’t see what we wouldn’t have similar results in other industries, as long as the government actually allows it to happen and doesn’t just sell off the crowns to create a short term budget surplus or reward their buddies in competing private industries.

Could also be skewed the other way if it’s only about wage and not total compensation. Higher paid positions tend to also have good benefits like healthcare, vacation time, pensions, etc. that are on top of the stated wage. Lower wage positions often don’t have those same benefits.

Most are in my experience. Permanent position really just means there’s no pre-arranged end date for the position as opposed to say covering a maternity leave where you’ve been specifically given that position for just until the permanent employee comes back. Unless otherwise negotiated any permanent employee can be let go with 2 weeks(depending on provincial regulations) notice.

Maybe $300/month, or $3600/year for groceries. Maybe another $200/year each for prescriptions, alcohol, and general housewares to cover the non-grocery items. $150 profit on $4200 of revenue would be about 4% margin. Doesn’t seem that high to me but I also don’t really know how that compares to other businesses in the same market.

I think the biggest one is some departments already have a GPS tracker type thing that’s launchable from a squad car. Then it’s just a matter of deciding if the risk of engaging in the chase is higher or lower than the risk of the suspect escaping. It’s also worth considering that never engaging in a chase makes it simple for people to avoid arrest simply by driving away, so there has to be some expectation in a suspects mind that it might not be worth running.

Hmm, hard to quantify since I’m not sure how much of the population does a significant portion of grocery and other shopping at Loblaws, but in that context it doesn’t seem so bad. If we taxed those profits completely that only puts an extra $50 in everybody’s pocket each year, which doesn’t seem like it’d really have a large financial impact on many households.

Is there anywhere one can get more context in this? Seems to me like Superstore tends to be one of the more affordable options, so how do we reconcile that with them taking excessive profits? Are they doing enough volume compared to the competition that they’re that far ahead in economy of scale, have they been able to convince their staff to accept significantly lower compensation compared to the competition? Is this just people’s dissatisfaction being pointed at the biggest player even though the whole market follows the same trend?

Agreed that pricing is something that needs to be addressed, but subsidizing individual orders through Canada Post isn’t a good solution. Better to subsidize bulk shipping to the local stores to bring down the price at the shelf. That’d get residents a better return for the amount of subsidy spent.

I feel like that’s a bad example as consoles tend to be household items rather than individual ones. Regular releases mean that people can choose their upgrade schedule and always have a recently released product available. Good example is cars, manufacturers release a new version of each model every year, but the differences are fairly minor. Then every 5-10 years they do a major revision to the model that’s a significant change. This way most people don’t feel put off when they buy a 2-3 year old model and a revision come out the following year, but a person can buy a new model after 5-10 years and feel like they got a significant upgrade from the previous one.

I’m not that knowledgeable about finance and economics, but I feel like the flight thing is overblown. If it’s a company based in Canada making profits outside of Canada, bringing those profits back and deciding to leave then that would be a loss. If it’s a company based in Canada and making profits in Canada and they decide to leave, either we can still tax a cut of their business before it leaves the country or some Canadian alternative can fill the gap. Of course this all assumes there’s somewhere else to go that’s more favourable, and I don’t see a 16% increase in the inclusion rate tipping that scale for a large portion of businesses.

Maybe we should reconsider the environment we provide that would both make that increase significant enough to have a business leave for somewhere else, and also that it’s cheap enough to modify operations that way. Are all the staff going to come too, or is this just some Hollywood accounting that offshores assets with no real change in operations.

Sask Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Commission has a similar policy of no electronic devices in the classroom. They can be outside the classroom during breaks(of which there are many). You’re allowed to have them on you, and leave class to take or make a call if you consider it important enough, just can’t have them out in the classroom. While it would have been nice sometimes to have access to network connected devices to supplement the classes, I can also understand the arguments around privacy, and distraction particularly among children/teens.

Couldn’t read the paywalled article, but most of the commentary on social media seems to be people that completely misunderstand how their taxes on capital gains are calculated, like thinking the inclusion rate is how much tax is paid, or think that paying capital gains on a secondary property is a new thing. Really it’s paying around 8% more in taxes on the gain over $250k. Some think they’re getting taxed on the whole sale price, not just the increased value, some seem upset that they’re taxed on the “investment” that was bought with after tax dollars(even though capital gains is taxed lower than things like a regular investment account). Some think it’s somehow unfair to pay the capital gains on what they consider their retirement plan, even though they have the same option to put those gains into an RRSP to shelter it from taxes, they’re paying a lower inclusion rate than regular income.

One thing that seemed to come out that didn’t change much and seems a big deal to some, is if you want to pass the property to next of kin, make sure your estate is sitting on 25% of the increased value of the property to cover capital gains, or use a trust and pay the gains up front(though this just puts it off so the kids pay more gains to pass it to their kids) before it hits the estate.

It is like that, and how it works for GST/PST. If I buy something outside Canada(either website/mail, or in person by leaving and coming back) and that seller doesn’t collect and submit sales taxes then I’m expected to submit those taxes myself.

Agreed. I’m all for accepting and learning from other cultures. I’m not for propping up low wage employers with immigration, particularly when it involves exploitation in ways that the locals refuse to put up with. We’re reaching a point where the boomers are retiring and there’s not as many gen A/Z to fill those vacated positions. Let those low wage jobs sit unfilled until they can find a way to do business while paying decent wages and providing good working conditions. Or go ahead and let the entry level jobs get automated while the actual well paying ones compete for workers.

Considering the median individual income in Canada is close to $45k, that’s a good point. Maybe there’s an argument that seniors have additional living expenses with healthcare or living in an assisted living or full-time care facility, but I feel like it should then be a lower OAS clawback with supports available for those with particularly high expenses.