Search results

. People in general should be allowed to lie as much as they please, including blurring the line between supposition and fact. People who work for companies and governments should be liable if they're lying about their employer and their employer's policies. They can probably already do that.

Give it a rest. Nothing has been "proven" yet. Remember the Biden family? No-one could even get to "proven", because lack of "proof" was proposed by any number of fart-catchers as an excuse for not opening investigations. "Oh, you can't investigate them. You have no PROOF!" rhetoric was all...

There's a refinery at the end of that pipeline.

The appearance of impropriety is monumental and undeniable. A family or closely controlled enterprise/foundation dealing in large sums, and particularly one accepting large sums from foreigners, warrants investigation. (A long-recognized pathway for bribery.) Someone should investigate...

The net worth isn't debatable if it's right there in disclosures. The questions centre on who is managing it.

Self-serving indulgences tend to be causes. What appears to go before tend to be excuses. People are missing the point, then. Even without divine causes, humanity is not meant to thrive without substantial effort. Canadians are getting what they voted for, including generations born since 1980.

Sure. The fact it means they spend more on themselves right now has nothing to do with it. Despair is a sin.

I'm just spitballing. If financial nihilists are going to behave like incels, that's on them, irrespective of causes/excuses.

Who knows? What fraction of actual ballot stuffing do the people convicted of it represent?

Naw. I just want to know whether I should care about this plight facing young people. If the best that can be done is to decorate the landscape with data polluted by the prospects of teenagers, I just don't care. When people care enough about their causes to provide good data, I might care...

If we're going to bitch about unemployment among the young, it has to be a reasonably informed bitch. Mixing high school age students, post-secondary students, and adult non-students into one lump doesn't inform us as to the unemployment faced by each of those distinct groups. One is underage...

"Students 20 to 24 years" are still students, and presumably most are full-time occupied with being students. "Other persons aged 15 to 24". Nope.

Whatever it is they imagine it demonstrates, it doesn't support the point you want to make. Garbage in, garbage out.

Governments will spare no expense to avoid looking like they're failing. That's desirable, is it?

By definition you can't know what the circumstances of young post-K-12 adults are from the number you gave. The number given could be skewed by very high unemployment among school-attending teens.

Absolute separation between in-school and out (K-12) is required. I can guess that unemployment is strongly affected by the transition from one to the other. I'm not sure what purpose is served by mixing them except to use the (probable) higher unemployment of one group to create an illusion...

No, I trust them. I'm not questioning whether the numbers accurately reflect the category. I absolutely deprecate the value of the category. Teenagers who almost entirely ought to be attending school and working part-time at most and are not legally responsible for themselves in many respects...

It's fairly typical in Canada for a preliminary announcement of intentions to be trumpeted as an accomplished concrete gain.

Is the discussion now about the freedom to gather, or something else? Apples, oranges.

"the youth unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 24" 15 to 24. Let that sink in. 24 is long enough to complete a two-year vocational program and get four years up on a trade, or long enough to complete a university degree and get two years into an occupation or profession. Statistics that...