NathanielThomas

joined 2 years ago
[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

No, I don't think depopulating the Earth is a fascist concept. I think murdering specific groups of people is fascist. I'm just talking about the unsustainability of the human plague.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Immigrants are at least partly to blame for the pressures. I mean, it's impossible they're NOT impacting the cost of housing. If you add 400,000 people to a country and do not add 400,000 units of new housing that year, you're in a deficit. It's Grade 1 math.

But what is genuinely to blame is a cogent political strategy to house Canadians. We can't just leave it to the private sector to maximize profits. We can't expect homeowners to make secondary suites. We can't do nothing.

Cutting immigration is a sure-fire way to prevent over-demand for a scarce resource. It may sound right-wing but that's the way it goes.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

There's always going to be meganerds who find insane builds in games.

I remember in Divinity Original Sin 2 I was at the final boss and it was stupid hard. So I went online to ask for help in Reddit and minmax nerds were like: Do you have skin graft? Do you have Green Tea? Do you have Adrenaline?

And sure enough, after respeccing the fight was a joke.

Of course, you can just beat DoS2 with barrelmancy, the most OP skill of all!

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

All I know is that despite all evidence that our world is increasingly turning into an inferno, that humans are still pro-human and will continue to want more humans. I guess we're just going to have to reap the predictable consequences of our obsession with overpopulating ourselves.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago

it's just pathetic that in 2023 we still consider AC to be a luxury when heating is mandatory. All humans require climate control for both extreme heat and cold. AC isn't and shouldn't be a luxury.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

I.e. you see your home as an investment from which you expect to see a positive return, but now you are afraid that it may lose some of that value.

No, I don't see it as an investment. The way the system works sees it as an investment. We've created a system whereby housing is overvalued because it's meant to have inflationary payoffs.

My parents didn't see our home as an investment. They just bought homes at random that were close to where they worked and seemed good for kids.

There's no option for me to buy a place that isn't an investment because that's the very nature of the market.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I never wanted my house to be a stock market investment. It's just that I want some consistency. Tell me what I'm getting into. Are we playing this game where we bid for overpriced housing as a supplemental retirement benefit? Or are we building a better future where the former doesn't matter? I just don't want to get fucked, that's all.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Sorry, you misunderstand slightly.

I don't mean investors in the sense of speculative parasitic humans who are devaluing life by overvaluing housing.

I mean, people like me who have worked from the age of 15-49 and now own a very modest sized apartment that is grotesquely overpriced and has quite literally enslaved me to mortgage payments for years to come.

If we devalue my apartment, why did I spend decades of sweat and toil to purchase it? Then it feels like I was playing the stock market.

And this isn't the same argument as the "why should people get free school when I had to pay student loans" since one doesn't affect the other. In this situation, if the value of homes come down too significantly, it's literally devaluing my work.

I didn't create the horrible dystopian system we live in but I do unfortunately have to abide by its rules. And now that I have a tiny piece (on paper but owned by the bank) I am hoping (like most Canadians) to take that piece and cash out to retire on in 10-15 years time.

What I'd really like to see is some kind of national housing strategy that guaranteed people basic housing regardless of their income (even if it's "zero"). That housing wouldn't impact the market but it could slow down the unhealthy growth of the valuation of housing.

If we could totally slow housing valuation growth to the normal 2% inflation, while also creating affordable housing for lower income/no income earners, then the system could adjust and that could be a true win win.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There will likely be a gen pop booster for all ages in the fall to coincide with the influenza campaign.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I got Disney free through some kind of shady Shaw deal I signed up for but the billisecond I see an ad it's gone.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 47 points 2 years ago (19 children)

Homes will never again be affordable because the system is completely broken (and not broken in the Millhouse expression, but rather in a normal definition). We made housing a commodity rather than a necessity of life and it ended with predictable results.

Now we have the unpleasant decision of diluting the investment of millions of Canadians or continuing to allow millions of Canadians to never own a home.

[–] NathanielThomas@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All fiscal Cons peddle the absolute same baloney, including Harper. And then we get the opposite.

Cons are liars, every single last one of them. Their whole philosophy is fundamentally provably false.

view more: ‹ prev next ›