Weāve been getting the purpose of family and childcare policy wrong for decades.
The goal of family policy, first and foremost, should be to help young families start earlier, and have more children than they are.
Nobody considers their quality of life better because they worked more or longer. Fulfillment and self-actualization are far more complex than that.
Canadian women want over 2 children according to polling. Theyāre having record lows instead, under 1.2 in Ontario, among the lowest in the country and developed world.
By this metric, what leaders have delivered (Conservative and Liberal alike) IS A FAILURE and it tells us weāre not doing enough to fight the milestone recession theyāve put on young Canadians. We canāt keep papering over this real problem with immigration alone.
Our primary measure of success for childcare and family policy must be whether we are reversing our civilization-threatening fertility challenges by helping families have the number of kids they want to.
Thatās why my platform, A Hopeful Future For Young Ontarians, attempts to change the dynamic by:
1. Encouraging young people to get married earlier (we should value this social institution).
2. Enabling them to have kids earlier.
3. Help them afford more space and TIME for growing their families.
Iād like to see public policy treat families as the teams that they are, so they can find balance between work, family, and social life that suits them.
Thatās why I am proposing the following ideas:
1. Provincial income splitting up to $50k for families with kids under 6 and married couples under 30, even if they donāt have kids yet. Because there should be benefits for getting married earlier!
2. Flexible, portable childcare benefits that fit non-traditional schedules and other personal choices. This does not come at the expense of expanding subsidized childcare spaces, for families who prefer that model. We should do both.
3. Rent dedications on income taxes for young renters and families with kids under 6, to help them save and provide more for their kids earlier.
4. 5% down zero-interest loans for expecting families and those with kids under 6, so they can buy homes sooner. Consider this a ābaby needs a new homeā bonus.
You cannot solve real problems by measuring the wrong things. Thatās why the objective of childcare and family policy needs to change.
Read more below.
https://t.co/woFkPD0z2i
Fresh footage from the night of July 11 in the Azov Sea shows the successful engagement of another 28 ships. In total, 76 vessels were hit between July 6 and 11.
A devastating blow to Russia's merchant fleet in the Azov and Black Seas and its ability to transport oil products, delivered by the UAV units "Kairos," "Ptakhy Madyara," "K-2," the 1st Center, "Raid," "Nemesis," and "Rarog."
the figs will rot if you donāt eat them. the jasmine blooms for three weeks and then itās over. your body at twenty-five will never come back, and neither will your body at forty-five. everything youāre saving for later spoils in the waiting. 1/6
A study comparing 16-to-24-month-old toddlers, untrained companion dogs, and house cats revealed that over 75% of both children and dogs will spontaneously indicate or retrieve a hidden, completely useless objectālike a dishwashing spongeāto help a searching caregiver without ever being asked or rewarded.
Cats under the exact same conditions showed a near-total absence of helpful actions, completely refusing to assist despite paying the exact same level of close attention to their owner's dilemma.
This lack of participation is entirely a choice rather than a lack of understanding because the moment researchers ran a trial switching the hidden object to the pet's favorite treat or toy, all species differences completely vanished and the cats became instantly cooperative.
While dogs and toddlers share a cooperative evolutionary drive to view human struggles as shared problems, cats strictly preserve their energy for a guaranteed personal payout.
David Sedaris thinks that if we just lived for the plot, we'd have material to write anything. He explains:
"My friend asked me what I did in the afternoon. I said, 'I went to the post office.' He replied, 'Why would you do that? You don't even need to go to the post office. If you have something you want mailed, you have the hotel called FedEx and they come and pick it up.'"
"I don't want to live like you. I want to go to the post office. And I went to the post office and it was remarkable. Or sometimes you go to the post office and the person is just grumpy and you can even get something out of that."
"I wanna live. I wanna be out there. I don't wanna sit at home and order everything online, and use all the shortcuts."
Iāve probably spoken to over a hundred people with non-partisan expertise in different policy areas over the last few months, as Iāve been developing my platform for Ontario Liberal leader.
So many conversations go like this:
āThis is a really good and necessary idea, but youāre brave for committing to itā
āWhy?ā
āBecause itās going to be controversial for xyz interest groupā
āOk, youāre confident it will help us get better outcomes?ā
āYes, absolutely. We will eventually have to do this. But think about if itās really a fight you want to haveā.
Well, it is.
It shocks me how many pariahs weāve made in our politics. We have made the Overton window of allowable debate far too small.
And that means our political discourse is often limited to solutions that wonāt address our systemic challenges.
Iām not running to lead the Ontario Liberal Party at 32 because I want to do politics the typical way.
Politics is full of people who waited their turn, and learned the coached language of āacceptableā discourse.
It is not full of people willing to tell the truth about why the province stopped working for so many of us.
Iām very excited to share more in the weeks ahead!
If we (the nuclear navy) can routinely train 18yoās, college dropouts, and all the rest in between to be elite operators with high technical knowledge, then itās doable across the board in all industries.
Have unwaveringly HIGH standards for level of knowledge and standards.
Most politicians arenāt honest about our housing system disaster, because the truth is hard.
For housing to be affordable again, prices need to fall.
Thatās exactly what federal and provincial governments bailing out big condo developers are trying to stop.
And I get it!
- - -
Falling home prices means many businesses, people, seniors, and families will lose wealth in real estate.
But itās unavoidable.
Anyone saying otherwise is lying and has no intention of fixing things.
By 2035, I want price-to-income ratios for housing in Ontario fall to 5:1, which is considered ābalancedā (see chart).
I would also like to see the price of market rents for 3B fall to under 30% of family income.
By being honest about this, I can also speak to the ālosersā of change, promise help those who need it through the affordability transition, and ultimately enable greater economic confidence.
Itās also worth saying that maintaining āflatā prices with rising incomes wonāt work for two reasons:
First, because it will take 30 years if not longer to restore true affordability.
Second, because the high cost of housing has undermined our productive economy and its ability to generate income growth in the first place.
- - -
For 30 years, municipal, provincial, and federal governments, progressive, Liberal, and Conservative, have mismanaged our housing system.
It was not a partisan failure, but a failure of last generationās political class to uphold the bargain of an attainable middle class life for the next one.
Iām not running for Ontario Liberal Leader to defend these failures, but to acknowledge them and then offer a real path forward.
I have 5 priorities:
1) Fix our housing supply system through land use, permitting, and building code reform.
2) Abolish taxes on new housing (and moving) while repairing municipal finance by making cities more than whole.
- - - 1 & 2 can lower the cost of building new homes by 30% or more. It will get industry building again and produce better quality housing. - - -
3) Help young people buy homes earlier in life (ideally before 30) so they start families earlier. Yes, these ideas will boost demand.
4) Prevent downward mobility and financial entrapment for middle and working class homeowners, families, and seniors because of falling prices. These are the people governments should help (not big developers).
5) Invest in non-market housing to prevent at-risk Ontarians from ending up homeless and to help the very sick people weāve allowed to become homeless get the care and treatment they deserve.
The Hoover Dam was completed in 1936.
Its concrete is still curing.
Concrete doesn't "dry." It undergoes a chemical reaction called hydration ā calcium silicate crystals grow and interlock over decades.
In thin pours, hydration completes in weeks.
In mass concrete ā pours measured in thousands of cubic yards ā the reaction continues for centuries.
The Hoover Dam contains 3.3 million cubic yards of concrete.
The deepest internal sections have never fully hydrated.
Engineers knew this when they built it.
They designed around it ā using cooling pipes, joint systems, and a pour sequence that let each section partially cure before the next was added.
The dam gets marginally stronger every year.
It will reach peak strength sometime around the year 2500.
Something built by humans in 1936 will still be actively becoming what it was designed to be in 2500.
That's what engineering for permanence looks like.
You guys donāt understand who is getting bailed out, itās the banks. That is a lot of dough they wonāt be getting back if these projects go under. Developer leaves the bag at the bank. Itās a backdoor bank bailout. Get your facts straight peeps.
Here is what should happen: the developers of these unwanted condos lower the price to what people are willing to pay.
The purchasers now have an affordable home, or a place they rent for cheap.
The developers lose money, sending the market signal that you shouldn't build that type of housing unless you can do it much cheaper.
The developers lose money. They might even go bankrupt. That sucks, but that is business.
Future developments are more suited to what people want and are willing to pay.
The taxpayer doesn't pay for any of it.
This is what the market is good at, and the government absolutely sucks at. Let the market do its job.