Dtules

joined 1 month ago
[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, Boomers getting special protections is kind of annoying.

A generation of millenials were told to go to post secondary no matter the cost and then when we did and incurred a ton of debt but the good jobs that were promised to us weren't there, the reaction was "oops, oh well, get fucked I guess".

Maybe if we stopped funneling a billion dollars into "managing" our CPP plan into poorer performance and used that money to increase CPP payouts instead, boomers could afford more of a hit on their housing.

I do wonder if another large contributing factor is that most of our MPs have conflicts of interest when it comes to the real estate market.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Is there a practical component to your argument or are you just sticking with ideal hypotheticals.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

Nice, thanks! I was wondering if I could get a Canadian replacement for my oral B heads.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think the solution is having these agencies be accountable to the accountability metrics that they set up.

Normalizing mismanagement seems short-sighted to me and ultimately only supports the argument that government is "useless" or "broken".

That extra billion going towards healthcare or education or even back into the pension fund could do a world of good.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

In the video, the creator is very clear that this is not an argument to remove the pension fund and he specifically addresses those concerns (twice, at the beginning and end of the video).

Wanting good, responsible management of something most of us pay into is not a bad thing. This should not be a partisan issue (which the creator also says)

 

A well-researched piece of journalism on the history of our Canada Pension Plan and how it is currently being managed.

TL; DW: For a while, we had a passively managed CPP fund. Then we switched to an actively managed fund which currently costs us over a billion dollars to manage each year. The rational for this switch is that an actively managed fund can outperform a passively managed fund. Has it? (No, it has not)

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

We need tech regulation.

Here's a great interview that explains why:

https://youtu.be/jsHoX9ZpA_M

In short, in order for democracy to work, we need shared trust. To have shared trust, we need a common basis of reality.

Our current unregulated informational landscape fragments reality and polarizes people because it is the most profitable thing to do, but it is death to a functioning society.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

I also like Nellie for cleaning products. Their dishwashing powder is pretty good.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

Yeah, they elected a rapist so...

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I cancelled a Florida cruise with my parents and sister.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 weeks ago

That was my immediate thought.

[–] Dtules@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I don't disagree about where social progress comes from, but until recently conservatives didn't conceptualize themselves as being in some kind of culture war that required them to move the goalposts quite so aggressively and at all costs.

They just always conveniently thought that the progressiveness of their childhood was the "correct" amount of progressiveness. And I do think on the whole they thought they valued democracy.

But the intense cognitive dissonance of the current MAGA movement that pins "the left" as "the real racists" and "the real sexists" didn't really exist. And they had some sense that completely making up BS lies was not desirable.

I guess my point is that it's still helpful to see things as a continuity and that there might be different ways people think about themselves if they identify as being conservative.

view more: next ›