You do realize they get paid more than us and that London is one of the most expensive places to live?
Also, it’s not a race to the bottom. That can only be your point of view if you think gas guzzling behemoths are the future? Actually Canada is light years behind many countries in terms of advances. We are already at the bottom in some respects.
I don't think they make more in the UK than they do in Ontario. The average wage in the UK is £550 (~$955), in Ontario is $1073. You're going to be hard pressed to find England on the top 10 lists of the 'best countries to live', hard pressed to find a list without Canada (which is usually in the top 5).
For fun -- search LONDON SH**HOLE and TORONTO SH**HOLE... tell us who wins the page count.
Banks make sure you can actually afford what you're buying, even more now with the stress tests. Banks don't want to end up holding your bag - they almost always lose money dealing with the mess people leave behind when they lose a home.
Car dealers (and toy dealers) will willingly get people into financial disasters just to move product or meet quota. I know people who have bought $10,000 cars at ~20% interest because they had **** credit but really wanted that car... and lots of us know people who have a shiny new $70K pickup truck in their driveway but can barely afford the payments on a 70-80 (some even stretch to 97!) month (!!) finance arrangement.
A lot of people aren't willing to live modestly, opting instead to live beyond their means at the expense of never never financing plans where by the time they pay off their vehicle...it's lost 90% or more of it's value. Do they deserve it? Have they earned it? I suppose there's an argument to be made that if someone's willing to loan them the money, well...
Perhaps I'm just happy living within our means with nothing to prove, riding a 15 year old bike with 7 and 8 year old cars in the driveway, and a modest home that fit our needs and finances when we bought it 20 years ago. I know not everyone shares my opinion.
Correct. Banks actually care that their customers don't bet into difficult situations, they make money based on sound lending practices and not over-stressing their client's ability to repay (one of the top 5 Canadian banks excepted). Retailer's don't care -- their objective is to move products.
Banks make sure you can actually afford what you're buying, even more now with the stress tests. Banks don't want to end up holding your bag - they almost always lose money dealing with the mess people leave behind when they lose a home.
Car dealers (and toy dealers) will willingly get people into financial disasters just to move product or meet quota. I know people who have bought $10,000 cars at ~20% interest because they had **** credit but really wanted that car... and lots of us know people who have a shiny new $70K pickup truck in their driveway but can barely afford the payments on a 70-80 (some even stretch to 97!) month (!!) finance arrangement.
A lot of people aren't willing to live modestly, opting instead to live beyond their means at the expense of never never financing plans where by the time they pay off their vehicle...it's lost 90% or more of it's value. Do they deserve it? Have they earned it? I suppose there's an argument to be made that if someone's willing to loan them the money, well...
Perhaps I'm just happy living within our means with nothing to prove, riding a 15 year old bike with 7 and 8 year old cars in the driveway, and a modest home that fit our needs and finances when we bought it 20 years ago. I know not everyone shares my opinion.
I see the point you're making, but people will make bad decisions all over the world. It's not just a North American thing, although I have heard Europeans are more cautious when it comes to debt.
I don't think they make more in the UK than they do in Ontario. The average wage in the UK is £550 (~$955), in Ontario is $1073. You're going to be hard pressed to find England on the top 10 lists of the 'best countries to live', hard pressed to find a list without Canada (which is usually in the top 5).
For fun -- search LONDON SH**HOLE and TORONTO SH**HOLE... tell us who wins the page count.
Not to mention in Canada that increased earning goes further because they get taxed just as much as us if not more and then anything they want to purchase is more expensive because that is taxed higher too lol. F that.
PP, your argument would seem to extend beyond those simply buying a larger vehicle or house than they might otherwise "need" to encompass the whole of Western society and the way their economies operate.
When we start attaching the subjective term "need" to the argument then everything is in play. We have hundreds of thousands of large diesel-powered trucks crisscrossing North American roads 24/7 for reasons you already know and to which I'll return in a few words. It suffices at the moment to note that you yourself make your living (at least in part) from that aspect of our economy.
You admonish others for having things based on a supposition that they don't "need" -- and indeed people elsewhere in the world get by without -- such things. So let's get back to trucking in the 21st century: Do businesses really "need" to operate on a just-in-time basis? Do individuals "need" the option to receive an Amazon order in a day or two? Surely if we're talking a planetary climate crisis versus what we "need" then those things are very definitely on the table. You and I have, in the distant past, gone back and forth about moving such freight to rail with you, as I recall, arguing that it's not practical, that trucks are the spine of the economy (paraphrasing) blah blah etc. But if we base behaviors -- personal and corporate -- on "need" it seems like a whole lot of stuff goes away because luxury, personal taste and status, convenience and strategy all fall below "need" in your vision. Correct me if I'm wrong...
On Mon April 22, Air Canada will offer seventeen flights from CYYZ to CYOW; it will have eighteen (18) return flights from CYOW to CYYZ for a total of 35 flights. That's one origin, one destination for one air carrier on a single day; on average there are 5000 commercial aircraft in the sky over the United States; is all that really "needed"?
How might a "needs-test" affect the economy? Where would our standard of living be if State planners told us what we "need" and took away our right to make decisions to the contrary? How would it affect you if some douche Liberal or, worse, a bureaucrat in Brussels or the UN, decided what you need and don't?
It's easy in the abstract to argue that no one "needs" a big SUV or pickup or a corporate jet (and, presumably, single-engine recreational aircraft, 5th wheel recreational trailers or RVs, horse trailers or big motorcycles that exist only to give the rider pleasure ...) but does it give you pause when the analysis puts your lifestyle and economic health in the crosshairs?
Need: Who defines this? The State? Justin Trudeau? The UN? Is there a test on would have to pass? To whom does the administration and scoring of this test fall? You already see the State under Trudeau doing this; during opening arguments in the Ontario challenge to the Trudeau Carbon Tax the Ontario Supreme court heard that the "dominant purpose" of the carbon tax is to "modify behavior..." from Canada's lawyers. Does that not give pause for concern?
How much of everything you cherish and enjoy, both material and behavioral (e.g. deciding to fly to Aruba for a two-week vacation) -- including your career -- are you personally willing to give up right now if you were to perform an honest assessment of "need" versus "desire"?
Taxes are a neccesary evil. I'm ok with paying taxes and when I'm paying more taxes, its often because I'm making more money, its just a percentage of what I make.
I dont like tax fraud, I pay my percentage, and I do hate waste, watching municipalities do crazy stuff with my tax dollars is pretty frustrating.
This current gas jump with the carbon tax, we need to reduce our carbon footprint, we all know that, its how the feds will use my money I'm concerned with
Perhaps I'm just happy living within our means with nothing to prove, riding a 15 year old bike with 7 and 8 year old cars in the driveway, and a modest home that fit our needs and finances when we bought it 20 years ago.
I don't think they make more in the UK than they do in Ontario. The average wage in the UK is £550 (~$955), in Ontario is $1073. You're going to be hard pressed to find England on the top 10 lists of the 'best countries to live', hard pressed to find a list without Canada (which is usually in the top 5).
For fun -- search LONDON SH**HOLE and TORONTO SH**HOLE... tell us who wins the page count.
You’re missing a few things. Job for job comparisons generally mean higher wages at an earlier career point in the uk plus you should compare London wages to Ontario wages really since the GTA skews things and London weighting is a thing. Northern wages in the uk are lower due to lower costs of living. Standard vacations in the uk are much longer than in Canada, many high street vacations are advertised for 2 weeks vacation, not 1 week as is the case here (this is the only thing I really miss about living in Europe). Not disagreeing that Canada has a better quality of life index, that’s why I’m here rather than there. Also London may be listed as a ******** on many webpages but there’s no comparison to Toronto for things to do, history, culture and public transport. London wins hands down every time.
Do individuals "need" the option to receive an Amazon order in a day or two? Surely if we're talking a planetary climate crisis versus what we "need" then those things are very definitely on the table.
You’re missing a few things. Job for job comparisons generally mean higher wages at an earlier career point in the uk plus you should compare London wages to Ontario wages really since the GTA skews things
I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like that. There are many factors including the type of work.
I have staff in Reading and Osterley London in the UK and staff in Liberty Village and Waterloo in Canada. As an example, the wage for a programmer with 5 years experience in either Toronto or Waterloo is around $80k + benefits. In Osterley the average wage for the same experience is around 32k pounds sterling and no benefits which is around 50k Canadian and change. It’s less in Reading. That’s a big difference for the same work.
I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like that. There are many factors including the type of work.
I have staff in Reading and Osterley London in the UK and staff in Liberty Village and Waterloo in Canada. As an example, the wage for a programmer with 5 years experience in either Toronto or Waterloo is around $80k + benefits. In Osterley the average wage for the same experience is around 32k pounds sterling and no benefits which is around 50k Canadian and change. It’s less in Reading. That’s a big difference for the same work.
Fair enough. There’s going to be discrepancies, and yes it can be complex. There’s a huge North/south divide in the uk. I know what I see in my field and those of my family members. It also depends somewhat on the exchange rate and the pound is low right now due to Brexit uncertainty.
The cost of living differences can be quite big. Eating out in the uk was about twice the cost of the same kind of meal in Canada for example.
I still prefer Canada and will never go back to the UK.
I don't think we have been spoiled, I think we are just smarter than the British.
In their great wisdom, they taxed fuels so much that it drove vehicle purchases to underpowered gas and diesel engines that spew terribly.
London is one of the most air polluted cities in the world -- it now rivals Beijing and New Delhi for high levels of nitrogen dioxide. London and Toronto are about the same density, London is about 3x larger and 3x the population. Toronto Ho2 is about 7PPB average, London 45ppb. Since 2007, Toronto and our SUV & Pickup loving drivers have reduced NO2 by 38%, London -- not so good, they dropped about 15%.
Oh, that great transit system you speak of? Sure it's big -- too bad it moves a smaller percentage of Londoners than does the TTC for Toronto.
dont forget to factor in most european cities and villages and regional roads were built for foot traffic, carts and the odd wagon. Small cars are required.
I don't think we have been spoiled, I think we are just smarter than the British.
In their great wisdom, they taxed fuels so much that it drove vehicle purchases to underpowered gas and diesel engines that spew terribly.
London is one of the most air polluted cities in the world -- it now rivals Beijing and New Delhi for high levels of nitrogen dioxide. London and Toronto are about the same density, London is about 3x larger and 3x the population. Toronto Ho2 is about 7PPB average, London 45ppb. Since 2007, Toronto and our SUV & Pickup loving drivers have reduced NO2 by 38%, London -- not so good, they dropped about 15%.
Oh, that great transit system you speak of? Sure it's big -- too bad it moves a smaller percentage of Londoners than does the TTC for Toronto.
3 million passengers per day London (that’s just the Tube, not the DLR or buses) vs 1.69 million Toronto (all transport)? Interesting. Also, having used both I know which one is more efficient for getting around. The coverage of both also can’t be compared. Pollution..yes, it’s always been bad. As a kid I used to get black hands just travelling around in London after a few hours from crap that had settled from the air. The congestion charge has done something about that though and at least they realized there was an issue and proposed a part solution.
Finally, smarter is a system that encourages larger car and truck purchases, and larger fossil fuel consumption? Ok, doesn’t look too smart in hindsight does it?
I’m not a big fan of the UK even though I was born there. It’s too congested, feels claustrophobic in parts compared to here. People aren’t as happy as they are here, or at least that’s how it feels. Comparitively crime isn’t really an issue here etc. However, there’s a few things they do right. Public transport is one. Think about the links to Pearson airport as an example? It’s only recently you got the Up link from Union station to the airport. Before that you either drove or got a bus/limo through crappy traffic.
Be careful about what you ask for. If people were more frugal they wouldn't go out as often, buy coffees and bling. That means fewer retail jobs and baristas. It means fewer deliveries by truck. Since many pensions are invested in these industries being frugal could damage a lot of wealth.
I want the government to be frugal and the public to spend like drunken sailors.
Oh and I just bought my wife some flowers. Imported from Ecuador by plane. Carbon footprints can be beautiful.
Ripped jeans , this is all you need to understand western society and how F'd we are. Sooo much available and disposable income we buy pants that are already worn out. We Pay people to selectively rip holes in perfect pants. Fashion has eclipsed common sense.
$1.28L for gas makes sense, $229.00 for pants that have already seen the best years taken away is bordering on full retard.
3 million passengers per day London (that’s just the Tube, not the DLR or buses) vs 1.69 million Toronto (all transport)? Interesting. Also, having used both I know which one is more efficient for getting around. The coverage of both also can’t be compared. Pollution..yes, it’s always been bad. As a kid I used to get black hands just travelling around in London after a few hours from crap that had settled from the air. The congestion charge has done something about that though and at least they realized there was an issue and proposed a part solution.
Not sure where you get your numbers, TTC runs 1.34million per day on the subway, and another 250K on surface rail GO. That's considerably higher as a ridership rate than London. The TTC alone has a higher ridership rate than does the London tube.
Finally, smarter is a system that encourages larger car and truck purchases, and larger fossil fuel consumption? Ok, doesn’t look too smart in hindsight does it?
I think our concern is pollution -- not the amount of fuel we burn. EPA tests show that a lot of small engined vehicles spew terribly because they are not always operating in efficient power ranges. That's why a Fiat 500 dumps out more pollution that a Ford Raptor despite using 1/3rd the fuel. In their wisdon, the Brits taxed fuel which drives consumers to smaller vehicles with high outputs.
Last I checked 3 million a day was considerably more than 1.3 million a day and that’s not factoring in bus ridership.
Run a small 4 stroke engine, say 1600cc side by side with a pick up truck hemi and tell me which one emits more CO2 and particulates over the same time period. It’s a simple matter of scaleable stoichiometry applied to a combustion equation.
The problem isn’t bad engines. Every car in the uk has to pass an MOT test. It’s the number of vehicles and the size of the engines in those vehicles.
Edit: just to be picky, the increased CO value indicates less efficient combustion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
