• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

So I continue to make friends here. This will really do it.

Brian Liley of the Toronto Sun, who is highly respected (Many of the predictions he has made with his pal Warren Kinsella have come to pass)

So blow him off at your own peril.

 
So I continue to make friends here. This will really do it.

Brian Liley of the Toronto Sun, who is highly respected (Many of the predictions he has made with his pal Warren Kinsella have come to pass)

So blow him off at your own peril.

We do the dog and pony for 10 years.

Thanks Brian Lilley. Very insightful.
 
PMMC has had a busy day.

FTA with the Philippines among a few other things.

And an in progress Canada-ASEAN FTA.

All those meetings and jetsetting in 2025 starting to pay dividends in 2026.

I don't begrudge him not being in QP if he's off doing more important stuff like this.
 
Last edited:

Canada's manufacturing sector expanded further in June as production and employment rose, but not all was positive for the sector as intensifying supply shortages helped ‌lift cost inflation to a near four-year high.
The S&P Global Canada Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) edged up to 53.0 last month from 52.9 in May. It marked the sixth straight month that the index was at or above the 50 threshold. A ⁠reading above 50 indicates expansion in the sector.

“Canada’s manufacturing economy on the surface enjoyed a positive June, with output and new orders rising at solid rates and supporting an uplift in employment for a third successive month," Paul Smith, economics director at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement.
The output index rose to 52.1 from 52.0 in May and the measure of employment was at 51.9, its ‌highest ⁠level since October 2024, as firms added staff to cope with increased workloads.
Keep the good news coming.
 
Average first time homebuyer in Ontario is 40 now. The average age in the early 90s was 27-30.

Wages have stagnated. Some basic examples from 2000 as a snap shot into how bad it has gotten. In 2000 the average individual income was 51,418$. The average median income (i.e. what most were actually making) was 40,443$. Average household income was 68,318$.

In todays dollars those numbers are 91,891$ for a individual, 72,277$ for a median, and 122,094$ for a household.

The current reality is 68,700$ for a individual (or 23,191$ less), median of 46,300$ (or 25,977$ less) and a household income of 106,300$ (or 15,794$ less).

The youth are drowning, and all we are doing is propping up the seniors so they get to listen to the fiddle as the titanic sinks.
Where are you getting your numbers?

Statscan Wages in Canada, 1981 to 2024.

Note that "real hourly wage" is an inflation-adjusted quantity.
 
Not a single person that I know who moved to the US (or Europe in a few cases) left Canada because of Politics, or 'high' taxes, or whatever gripe you can think of - they moved because they wanted to see if they could prove themselves in an arena of 350 million vs 39 million......
The reasons the US is a big arena are, at root, political. The fact Canadian out-migration is a long-term trend doesn't eliminate politics; it just suggests the political concensus which sustains that state is also long-term.
 
Nothing stops people from investing amounts equivalent to pension contributions except themselves.
and the fact that they don't have an extra 50 a week that is available. Fuel is up, cost of cars is up, cost of public transit is up, property taxes are up, food is up - wages just aren't keeping up. People are not even buying toys. Easy indicator: the inventory at the local RV store is way down this year. They never stocked up beyond the absolute minimum this spring.
 
.
and the fact that they don't have an extra 50 a week that is available. Fuel is up, cost of cars is up, cost of public transit is up, property taxes are up, food is up - wages just aren't keeping up. People are not even buying toys. Easy indicator: the inventory at the local RV store is way down this year. They never stocked up beyond the absolute minimum this spring.
Typically a pension plan has contributions paid directly by the employee, and "employer contributions". The latter are just employee contributions everyone pretends are paid by the employer; they are still part of the employee's total compensation.

Everyone not in a pension plan is capable of making his own "employee/employer contributions", and should be doing so, to the tune of at minimum 10% of gross and recommended 20%.

If the point is that people in the remaining work forces represented by bargaining units have managed to use their labour monopolies to extract more concessions from employers, that's a different discussion. Unfortunately, for some people to get more, others have to get less - costs have to be paid from somewhere. Pick anything you choose - teachers, nurses, public service, auto assemblers - and assume everyone in Canada gets their compensation. Do you think that can be done?
 
.

Typically a pension plan has contributions paid directly by the employee, and "employer contributions". The latter are just employee contributions everyone pretends are paid by the employer; they are still part of the employee's total compensation.

Everyone not in a pension plan is capable of making his own "employee/employer contributions", and should be doing so, to the tune of at minimum 10% of gross and recommended 20%.

If the point is that people in the remaining work forces represented by bargaining units have managed to use their labour monopolies to extract more concessions from employers, that's a different discussion. Unfortunately, for some people to get more, others have to get less - costs have to be paid from somewhere. Pick anything you choose - teachers, nurses, public service, auto assemblers - and assume everyone in Canada gets their compensation. Do you think that can be done?
Bit of a side track but germane. The advantage of a company pension is that the company extracts that 50 bucks I mentioned before it is paid out thus producing a forced savings. Yes it is part of the total pay package but the majority of people spend according to their take home and there is nothing left at the end. Our education system should be teaching money management as a compulsory course in H.S. with a thorough explanation of savings and self-administered pension plans. Whilst the illustrated paragraph is a great idea, for many people it is an impossibility given COL. and even for those whose budget would allow such investment it is a very disciplined individual who can actually do it.
 
All those meetings and jetsetting in 2025 starting to pay dividends in 2026.

I don't begrudge him not being in QP if he's off doing more important stuff like this.
Overall I agree.
He's treating this job like as CEO would and for that I'm glad. I believe that he's playing to his strengths - knowing alot of key people and having a solid reputation around the world. Both of these things are opening doors for Canada and for us to have a chance to prove ourselves as being a capable, engaged, reliable partner. If we f&ck this up, then its on us.
 
The reasons the US is a big arena are, at root, political. The fact Canadian out-migration is a long-term trend doesn't eliminate politics; it just suggests the political concensus which sustains that state is also long-term.
That political consensus goes well back before 1867 and before 1900 and before 1950. There was no cry from Canada to 'sends us you're poor, tired huddled masses yearning to be free.'
The Orange Lodge denominated politics in Ontario for decade after decade and discouraged non-Protestant and non-British immigration.
Quebec did the same for non-French speaking and non-RC's.
Clifford Sifton did all that he could to ensure that the immigrants allowed in during his time period where only farmers from the old Russian Empire, discouraging all others (except British farmers of course). He also did all that he could to discourage those farmers from being able to leave their farms and move to the towns/cities because existing 'English' Canadians saw them as a threat to their culture.

The US's mantra of 'send us you're poor, tired huddled masses yearning to be free' was a political decision, 100%, they wanted to fill up all their spaces so that no one else had the chance to go there and claim it for themselves. Their push on the 'melting pot' mentality ensured that this mix of cultures all blended up to be 'American'. Whereas those in charge here pre-1960 did all that they could to keep 'Canada British' and resisted mass immigration.
 
Take the average income number for the year I mentioned and put it in the inflation calculator. Thats where I get my numbers.
Sure. I'll stick with the Statscan numbers for medians.

There is one aspect, only, in which "younger generations" are at a disadvantage. Home prices. Everything else is gravy. Tech has never been more advanced; availability of consumer goods has never been more widespread; and right now, all kinds of employment opportunities exist. "We need more people working in X" has practically become the national motto.
 
Bit of a side track but germane. The advantage of a company pension is that the company extracts that 50 bucks I mentioned before it is paid out thus producing a forced savings. Yes it is part of the total pay package but the majority of people spend according to their take home and there is nothing left at the end. Our education system should be teaching money management as a compulsory course in H.S. with a thorough explanation of savings and self-administered pension plans. Whilst the illustrated paragraph is a great idea, for many people it is an impossibility given COL. and even for those whose budget would allow such investment it is a very disciplined individual who can actually do it.
Sure, I know the advantage of "forced savings". People have known the fable of the grasshopper and the ant, or some variation, probably since pre-recorded times. Inability to onboard that, even in an age of plenty, is why we have OAS.
 
Sure. I'll stick with the Statscan numbers for medians.

There is one aspect, only, in which "younger generations" are at a disadvantage. Home prices. Everything else is gravy. Tech has never been more advanced; availability of consumer goods has never been more widespread; and right now, all kinds of employment opportunities exist. "We need more people working in X" has practically become the national motto.
Ahh yes the main thing you need to survive has gone up dramatically but I am going to discount that because it doesn’t suit my narrative.

The apartment I rented in 2014 was 860$ a month. That same apartment today is 2k a month. Wages haven’t doubled. Cars are more expensive, food is more expensive. Yeah sure your not paying 300$ for cable but that doesn’t mean much when you struggle to pay for the basics.
 
Ahh yes the main thing you need to survive has gone up dramatically but I am going to discount that because it doesn’t suit my narrative.

The apartment I rented in 2014 was 860$ a month. That same apartment today is 2k a month. Wages haven’t doubled. Cars are more expensive, food is more expensive. Yeah sure your not paying 300$ for cable but that doesn’t mean much when you struggle to pay for the basics.
The greatest issue about affordability for young people is that they believe it is their right to have work/life balance right out of high school, and to have the same life they had when living with their parents. Very few understand what hardship is until its too late. Do you know who can afford their own houses these days in their early thirties? Individuals who work six and seven days a week and multiple jobs and save that money up. Not those who live at home, work 35-40 hours a week and then spend all their money on vacations, weekends away, Starbucks, and wine nights.

Oh, and the other group that can afford housing. Immigrant families where all eight family members work whatever jobs they can get for as many hours as possible, and pool their earnings. And when they have enough saved up, they buy a local business and run it successfully. And then purchase the next one, and so on, creating employment for the ever growing family.

This used to be the way family farms, and family run businesses worked, until the newest generations decided they didn't want to put in the effort to keep the wealth generating businesses going because the work was too hard.
 
The greatest issue about affordability for young people is that they believe it is their right to have work/life balance right out of high school, and to have the same life they had when living with their parents. Very few understand what hardship is until its too late. Do you know who can afford their own houses these days in their early thirties? Individuals who work six and seven days a week and multiple jobs and save that money up. Not those who live at home, work 35-40 hours a week and then spend all their money on vacations, weekends away, Starbucks, and wine nights.

Oh, and the other group that can afford housing. Immigrant families where all eight family members work whatever jobs they can get for as many hours as possible, and pool their earnings. And when they have enough saved up, they buy a local business and run it successfully. And then purchase the next one, and so on, creating employment for the ever growing family.

This used to be the way family farms, and family run businesses worked, until the newest generations decided they didn't want to put in the effort to keep the wealth generating businesses going because the work was too hard.
It's a rigged system.

For every dollar someone saves, the price they need for something else goes up 2. The job market and youth unemployment has been fluctuating and inconsistent since 2008. And now AI is eating away at jobs that many young people used as entry level.

You know why people go on vacations, starbucks and wine nights? Also put off having kids and getting married? Because if you're never going to catch up, save enough for a downpayment, might as well go the instant gratification route. It's financial nihilism on a mass scale.

That's what happens when the system is rigged.
 

Good news: Data suggest that young Canadians are more financially engaged than prior generations. For instance, according to data from the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC), over the past two decades the share of people aged 18-24 investing in securities has more than doubled.

The bad news, however, is that this rising interest among generation Z in investing isn’t expressed by disciplined long-term strategies such as purchasing low-risk mutual funds to build a healthy retirement portfolio, or other traditional financial advice, but increasingly by way of high-risk trading strategies to try and grow portfolios quickly and aggressively, according to the BCSC.

And this rise of financial engagement isn’t a result of an increase in disposable income. Gen Z doesn’t have any. They’re just surviving, according to several recent surveys. Many younger Canadians believe retirement planning will be more difficult than it was for their parents, according to a recent poll by the Bank of Montreal.

Instead, the increasing prevalence of high-risk investment strategies is a symptom of a worrying rise of “financial nihilism” among young adults.

Financial nihilism, a term attributed to podcaster Demetri Kofinas, is a philosophy that forgoes long-term financial security in favour of near-term consumption and high-risk investments such as meme stocks and cryptocurrencies.

This philosophy can be seen in spending patterns, as younger Canadians, more pessimistic about their economic prospects, increasingly favour splurging on small luxuries such as travel, as opposed to saving for a down payment or retirement. This so called “doom spending” helped fuel the 30 per cent rise in gen Z consumer debt — more than any other age bracket.

In the realm of investing, this means that younger generations are more likely to be involved in speculative crypto investments, “vibes” based investment strategies, and high-risk “YOLO” (you only live once) trades, putting a significant portion of their capital on a single, risky investment in the hope of a substantial return.At the same time, young Canadians are now relying less on professional financial advisors, and increasingly managing their investments themselves, preferring social media and online sources for information and guidance.

And while financial experts might view these investment strategies as short-sighted and irresponsible, for many this behaviour could be viewed as absurdly rational.As wage growth decouples from cost of living, youth unemployment rates skyrocket, and young people give up on ever owning a home, starting a family or retiring by following traditional financial advice, it should come as no surprise that younger Canadians are open to financially risky behaviour.

Housing costs remain far above historical averages. The mortgage payment on a representative home in Canada in the fourth quarter was more than 50 per cent of median household incomes — well above the long-term average of 40.5 per cent, according to National Bank of Canada.

In the choice between forever renting and economic precarity or a high-risk trade that could help with a down payment, treating investments like a roulette table doesn’t seem so ridiculous.
When you have a generation deciding it's better to just give up, you know the system is absolutely broken.
 
Back
Top