karlhungus

20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.

I haven't read the article...yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don't know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I'm fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don't want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn't get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)... This is tough

You aren't a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.

For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren't assholes is "determining best interests".

I don't want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.

As a parent, this is a parenting/personal issue, fuck off and please spend my money doing useful things (like supporting health care, or housing) not attempting to protect my children.

Skim the article, it's 20 large municipality's, nowhere is 0 mentioned

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.

No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

How is it impossible to be true?

I'm not sure how you could make this argument without making assumptions about base crime rates.

Could be in vogue and also true

Interviews are a crapshoot, and feedback from them is usually valueless. Good luck to you in your future interviews

I can't imagine it's actually like this, im guessing their just surrounded by pro oil propaganda. So they rationalize making gobs of money by believing that they aren't doing harm.

It's probably really easy when everything in their life rewards them being pro oil.

I think I favour building lots of (hopefully well made) public housing, and taxes on non primary dwellings. I'm not in any way an expert though.

I don't really understand why the statements in your second paragraph are true.

If you bought your house for $600k you should hopefully be prepared to pay that $600k over time, whether or not interest rates go up.

Unfortunate reality is sometimes rates jump, predicting 10 years out what your income will be, and how interest rates change is sort of impossible. IMO a lot of this uncertainty on the part of the buyer is mitigated by history, while the banks only have to take that risk in 5 year chunks (idk if there are longer renewal periods).

faster by kicking people out and foreclosing

short googling seems like people tend to declare bankruptcy first in canada. It all around seems like a terrible situation -- and not one we'd want to encourage, hence: we probably shouldn't actively lower existing housing prices to pandemic or 2010 prices.

Selling and purchasing aren't the only time you'd feel it. Any time interest rates go up you'd also feel it (now you get to pay more on large amount). With very large principals you'd be paying it for longer. Anytime the mortgage goes up for renewal no bank would want to touch you, or maybe they'd love you, just with really unfavorable terms (idk much about banks).

Having a large mortgage when the asset tanks can be thought of having a big debt where the collateral for that debt is suddenly with way less.