Ahh, that makes sense. It was the second part that threw me off.
The difference of course being that bartenders get paid barely anything and tips are expected to be the majority of their income while baristas are supposed to be paid regular wages.
I think 20% of every sailing is reserved for drive on customers?
It’s closer to 75-90% (depending on various factors).
And I think you’re significantly underestimating how many BC residents take the ferry. Next time you’re on there walk around and look at plates. I’d be very surprised if you get anywhere close to 50% of personal vehicles with out of province plates.
Right, but unless I’m misunderstanding you, I don’t understand why we should be tipping bartenders but not baristas. The amount of work and skill required seems comparable (I’ve never done either so I can’t say that definitively), they’re almost the same job with different ingredients.
Are there any provinces that still have a lower minimum wage for alcohol servers? BC got rid of that years ago.
Unless you mean minimum wage in general is barely anything.
I think the number one factor there is real estate. You can’t start a farm out of your apartment and restaurants can’t easily exist out in the boonies where rent is cheaper.
Assuming you’re talking about a full service retirement home and not just a 55+ building $5000/mo seems like a good deal to me, at least from a BC perspective. You’d be looking at almost $2000 just to rent anywhere, you’d be lucky to have a meal cooked for you for $10, $20 if it’s decent quality, that’s another $900-1800/month. Once you consider utilities you’re pretty close to what a new renter would be paying if they refused to cook for themselves.
I mean it’s worth it for the cool knives alone.
Let’s be real, those of us who can’t afford housing can’t afford a jacked up F350.
The thought of an across-the-board regulation based rent cap never crossed my mind, but that actually could be effective and fair. If there was some kind of easy to understand formula based on the unit, potential landlords would easily be able to calculate whether it makes financial sense instead of simply cutting costs and squeezing as much rent out as possible. There wouldn’t be an incentive to kick people out (can’t jack the rent) but there would be one to keep it maintained/updated since they’d be competing on everything but price. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if my rent went up a bit if it meant my unit would be properly maintained or I had the freedom to move somewhere similar without doubling my rent.
Edit: you could make it more enticing to the current landlords by easing some renter protections, like making it much easier to remove problem tenants
Yeah, I do think the assisted living industry would be forced to adjust though. It’s not like the real estate market in general, if the majority of their potential buyers simply don’t have enough money it’s not like they can pivot to other demographics or attract wealthy people from outside the country.
If things aren’t corrected, it won’t be long before a whole generation of new seniors is cash poor with no house to sell.
It really sounds like the issue there is just another subset of housing (un)affordability.
I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the rent to increase the normal legal amount every year (2-5%) as it would with most landlords.
And they’re always some ridiculous quantity for the item too. Like 4 4L jugs of milk for $18 or $8 each (made up example but not far off).
I’ve gone into a grocery store and left after filling up my cart because the line was comically long. Who would ever voluntarily go to a busier grocery store? I wish there were still 24hr grocery options so I could go in the middle of the night when it’s quiet.
If Alberta has a problem receiving federal funding why should the rest of us fight it? Take all the savings and divvy it up between all the other provinces that could make good use of it.
Somehow I got lucky and the paywall disappeared on refresh. My takeaway was that we should make the capital gains on investment real estate (I’m assuming anything other than principal residence) be taxed at a 100% inclusion rate. Part of the reason is that most of the people seeing these gains are at the age where they’re starting to require a higher share of government spending while earning less from employment, so it’s reasonable for them to pay closer to their share of taxes.
When I was in highschool (early '10s) I remember successfully arguing that since laptops were allowed in class we should be allowed to use our phones for schoolwork too. Whether that was actually good is debatable. I did actually type the majority of my work on my phone but I also wasted a lot of time screwing around, although the same could be said for the computer lab and I’m sure it would’ve been the same if I ever had a laptop.
(One note, apparently the school I went to was kind of weird, and only half your classes were actually lessons by your own teacher. Generally all devices were restricted during those classes, with limited exceptions on a teacher-by-teacher basis.)
If you’re doing 115km/h it would absolutely not be safer to have the trucks maxed out at 30km/h slower than you. Arguably the safest speed on a divided highway is whatever the flow of traffic is (to minimize passing and lane changing).
The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn’t practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can’t possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.
That could be a little misleading if you’re talking about becoming a member. They exist all across western Canada but they’re all run by different local co-ops. For example I’m on Vancouver Island in the Duncan area, we have 3 Co-op gas stations and a Co-op liquor store. The gas stations (and every other Co-op south of us) is Peninsula Co-op, the liquor store (which is a 1 minute drive away) is Mid Island Co-op. Mid Island stretches for about an hour and a half drive north, until there’s more Peninsula for a few hours drive then if you go further, all the way to the northern tip it’s Mid Island again. If you go west there are 3 small Co-ops that all serve their own towns. If you go east to the Gulf Islands, some are Mid Island and some are their own. None of this really makes a difference if you’re not a member, but if you are it can get confusing which ones you get a rebate on or not.