Wow, great work Gen Squeeze. You really are a think AND change tank! Incredible to see this work happen within one generation of hard work, research and outreach. Congratulations!
It's genuinely great to see a government being this focused on younger adults. But, honestly, "every opportunity [older generations] had, and more" is not what announced policy seems to be leading towards as much as making diminished prospects more comfortable. On housing, being able to afford to rent was the baseline for previous generations and it seems like it's being sold as the goal rather than a stopgap. Same with pushing tons of apartments and multi-family housing when they are already the majority of what is being built in the provinces with most severe affordability problems. I think everyone accepts that it will takes years to restore affordability, but (from the perspective of a not-that-young-anymore adult) there seems to be no willingness to stop imposing costs rather than merely mitigating them. Particularly, despite some belated acknowledgement that temporary immigration has hurt affordability, there seems to be little seriousness about the fact that continuing to prioritize relatively fast permanent population growth (whatever its long-term benefits) makes restoring affordability even slower. Frankly, young people's patience is being abused.
I hope that that willingness to talk about fairness will also bring a willingness to talk about harder conflicts, but I don't think we have seen that yet. Not downplaying the win or the work it took to achieve--and, seriously, congrats!--but I also think politicians need to know that the failure to act years ago had costs. And, I think it might take a little more bravery still for politicians to admit that failure to act gave them less runway for other priorities.
"Frankly, young people's patience is being abused."
You're so right, and I couldn't agree more with you!
At the same time, I had a couple people I saw over the weekend who saw this article say things like "I don't really feel bad for young people, I paid my taxes" to me.
So within that context, leaders recognizing the situation we're in feels like a really big deal. I think there are many people out there that still don't get it, so this really does feel like it will help push the conversation in the right direction (though we still have a long way to go from there).
Agreed - that's a great line Valerie! I think we might have to use that same sentiment going forward. We're always hammering home the point about years of inaction building up to today's problems - but also that this isn't an absolution. The 2024 budget is looking like it could be a tipping point IF it acknowledges the deeper structural problems and tensions. New incremental spending on things for younger folks is great, but we're still anticipating a large deficit, and a significant age gap in spending. We need to fix the revenue side of the equation as well as thinking about spending priorities (and/or cuts).
Following through on your promises on climate, housing, childcare is the best way to show how vacant your apposition’s policies are. It's the surest way to get my vote.
Feed what Canadians are starved for- convictions and substance. They are tired of politicking on these issues. Keep your promises. And don't be afraid of boldly doubling down on them. Go as far as you can. Canadians are far more liberal-fair sharing- minded than the sloganeering that your opposition assumes.
That's a great point Glen, we are good natured people, which should make it easier for our leaders to implement the policies we need, which will require certain sacrifices (for example, from those who have benefitted from the run-up in home prices).
Following upon Valerie's comments about harder conflicts, here are some:
My father gave a talk about climate change in the 1980’s. 40 years ago, there was a failure to look ahead, and the consequences are facing us. More than ever, we need to think about how 'be a good ancestor' now. The next hundred or more years will be very difficult!
When we look ahead 40-75 years and what do we see? I see:
1. Canada’s top three foreign exchange earning products are petroleum, autos and food. All will be having a very difficult time earning foreign exchange. In BC, our logging 'capital' (old growth forests) is pretty well gone. In Alberta will be raw oil exports will be largely over.
2. We will also see significant damage, stress and expense within our society from the effects of climate change such as fires, storms and sea level rise. For one example, the homes of 330,000 people in the lower mainland may need to move because they are faced with the flooding (with a storm surge) by the end of this century, and this threat seems to be accelerating every time we get better data.
If you agree that preparing for these projections is the least we should do, what does that mean for policy today? Here's one idea:
Let's do what young families are doing, adjust the 'demand' to the 'supply', rather than the other way around!
If we match 'demand' from population growth, to the 'supply' of housing, medical care and emission limits:
* It can begin quickly by the federal cabinet by adjusting immigration, students visas, etc.
* It would enable provinces and cities to 'catch up' with the housing and medical care shortages, and total emissions would match our good reduction of per capita CO2 emissions.
Wow, great work Gen Squeeze. You really are a think AND change tank! Incredible to see this work happen within one generation of hard work, research and outreach. Congratulations!
It took all 43,000 of us, thanks for all your contributions Jay!
It's genuinely great to see a government being this focused on younger adults. But, honestly, "every opportunity [older generations] had, and more" is not what announced policy seems to be leading towards as much as making diminished prospects more comfortable. On housing, being able to afford to rent was the baseline for previous generations and it seems like it's being sold as the goal rather than a stopgap. Same with pushing tons of apartments and multi-family housing when they are already the majority of what is being built in the provinces with most severe affordability problems. I think everyone accepts that it will takes years to restore affordability, but (from the perspective of a not-that-young-anymore adult) there seems to be no willingness to stop imposing costs rather than merely mitigating them. Particularly, despite some belated acknowledgement that temporary immigration has hurt affordability, there seems to be little seriousness about the fact that continuing to prioritize relatively fast permanent population growth (whatever its long-term benefits) makes restoring affordability even slower. Frankly, young people's patience is being abused.
I hope that that willingness to talk about fairness will also bring a willingness to talk about harder conflicts, but I don't think we have seen that yet. Not downplaying the win or the work it took to achieve--and, seriously, congrats!--but I also think politicians need to know that the failure to act years ago had costs. And, I think it might take a little more bravery still for politicians to admit that failure to act gave them less runway for other priorities.
"Frankly, young people's patience is being abused."
You're so right, and I couldn't agree more with you!
At the same time, I had a couple people I saw over the weekend who saw this article say things like "I don't really feel bad for young people, I paid my taxes" to me.
So within that context, leaders recognizing the situation we're in feels like a really big deal. I think there are many people out there that still don't get it, so this really does feel like it will help push the conversation in the right direction (though we still have a long way to go from there).
Agreed - that's a great line Valerie! I think we might have to use that same sentiment going forward. We're always hammering home the point about years of inaction building up to today's problems - but also that this isn't an absolution. The 2024 budget is looking like it could be a tipping point IF it acknowledges the deeper structural problems and tensions. New incremental spending on things for younger folks is great, but we're still anticipating a large deficit, and a significant age gap in spending. We need to fix the revenue side of the equation as well as thinking about spending priorities (and/or cuts).
I signed and wrote:
Following through on your promises on climate, housing, childcare is the best way to show how vacant your apposition’s policies are. It's the surest way to get my vote.
Feed what Canadians are starved for- convictions and substance. They are tired of politicking on these issues. Keep your promises. And don't be afraid of boldly doubling down on them. Go as far as you can. Canadians are far more liberal-fair sharing- minded than the sloganeering that your opposition assumes.
That's a great point Glen, we are good natured people, which should make it easier for our leaders to implement the policies we need, which will require certain sacrifices (for example, from those who have benefitted from the run-up in home prices).
Exactly, Kareem. Politicians need to trust and respect our better nature rather than our reactionary nature.
Following upon Valerie's comments about harder conflicts, here are some:
My father gave a talk about climate change in the 1980’s. 40 years ago, there was a failure to look ahead, and the consequences are facing us. More than ever, we need to think about how 'be a good ancestor' now. The next hundred or more years will be very difficult!
When we look ahead 40-75 years and what do we see? I see:
1. Canada’s top three foreign exchange earning products are petroleum, autos and food. All will be having a very difficult time earning foreign exchange. In BC, our logging 'capital' (old growth forests) is pretty well gone. In Alberta will be raw oil exports will be largely over.
2. We will also see significant damage, stress and expense within our society from the effects of climate change such as fires, storms and sea level rise. For one example, the homes of 330,000 people in the lower mainland may need to move because they are faced with the flooding (with a storm surge) by the end of this century, and this threat seems to be accelerating every time we get better data.
If you agree that preparing for these projections is the least we should do, what does that mean for policy today? Here's one idea:
Let's do what young families are doing, adjust the 'demand' to the 'supply', rather than the other way around!
If we match 'demand' from population growth, to the 'supply' of housing, medical care and emission limits:
* It can begin quickly by the federal cabinet by adjusting immigration, students visas, etc.
* It would enable provinces and cities to 'catch up' with the housing and medical care shortages, and total emissions would match our good reduction of per capita CO2 emissions.
* It will save billion$