Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 195 posts

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#151

Post by sandworm101 »

ersii wrote: post #104
dmix wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about seniors needing to 'participate in society' after retirement. I specifically said "non-seniors" have no industry to participate in there... which makes economic sense to relocate them. My point related to seniors was related to the increased medical care costs required for remote poorly serviced communities. They don't even have a fire department...

I'd seriously be fine with that. I would not mind giving up all social services, especially not if I got a cashback. That said, I would expect this to come with 'no taxation in the future' as well. That said, I am not everybody.

>> I would not mind giving up all social services, especially not if I got a cashback.

It's not your decision. The collective system collapses if everyone is given the choose to opt out. Canada isn't going to let people suffer and die along in the woods without help just because they signed an opt-out form. Nor will the country allow seniors, who control most all privately-held wealth these days, to stop paying taxes because they want to live off the grid. Everyone is connected and everyone is expected to participate because when it hits the fan, everyone rushes in to help regardless.

I've had this discussion on countless climbing/skiing adventures. A person's choice to walk into the wilderness does not mean the government can abandon them to their fate once things go wrong, no matter what they say about not wanting help.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#152

Post by dragonwriter »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #148
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute au…

Enumerating the rights of states in the US is hard. The things that are clearly states rights is unclear. People assert various things as being states rights, but I think they are incorrect that this is an answerable question. There is usually an assertion that something is in that category, but others will not agree. Is the right to marry with restrictions a state right or a federal right or both?

Its actually not hard, as there aren't any.

States (like all governments) don't have rights, they have powers. And those powers are usually detailed in the state constitution.

The federal Constitution limits the powers of states, assigns certain roles to the states, and reserves certain powers to them (or them and the people together), but generally the powers of the state are defined per state by the state's own foundational governing documents, just as the powers of the federal government are in its Constitution.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#153

Post by msbarnett »

sandworm101 wrote: post #140
jhbadger wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.

Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American sys…

> Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments?

The very country we're discussing here, Canada, does.

Federalism is not a uniquely American institution. Canada is a federal state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#154

Post by msbarnett »

jhbadger wrote: post #149
sandworm101 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American sys…

Yes. Provincial courts are a thing in Canada in addition to Federal courts. I'm not sure about the "not touching" rule, but they are separate, because many offenses at the provincial level (i.e. not having a sign in French for your business in Quebec) aren't offenses at the Federal level.

Hell, the entire Quebec legal system is distinct from anywhere else in Canada, owing to its roots in France's legal traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#155

Post by msbarnett »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128
msbarnett wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another? To me, saying " The Canadian government is doing X", is a statement about the activities of the Federal government. The use of the definite article implies singularity. A provincial government is not the Canadian government -- it's one of many in a federal system. It might in some narrow sen…

Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute au…

> Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset.

And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. As recent as the 1949 it was an entirely separate country. It is a latecomer to the Canadian Confederation.

America is not unique in its federalism.

> Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities.

This is completely incorrect. In point of fact, Provinces have more power than the federal government (and, in practice, more power than states do in the US). Section 33 of the charter devolves power to override the federal constitution or acts of the federal parliament to provincial legislatures. This so-called not-withstanding clause effectively grounds British-style parliamentary supremacy at the provincial level.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#156

Post by stephenboyd »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #44

> While she’s optimistic that the country can build a new economic base, she said it’ll happen only if Canadians “stop over-relying on the extraction of resources or, even worse, selling off our land.” This Canadian seems to believe that, in some real or legal sense, the land belongs to her and Canadians in general. But "Canadian land" truly belongs to anyone in the global real estate market with sufficient cash. Thi…

It's only reality because it's policy, which can change.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#157

Post by NotSammyHagar »

tjl wrote: post #146
greggarious wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as easy as you'd think to immigrate from Canada to the US. (Especially since it's difficult to be considered a rockstar ninja whatever if you went to a very good school like University of Toronto instead of Stanford)

I do know. I've been trying to find a job and I have an Engineering Ph.D. from University of Waterloo which is considered one of the best in the country. Companies in the US often hire from UW (Microsoft has traditionally been a big hirer), but I'm overqualified in one sense, but I don't have the work experience people want.

CS PhD in Engineer? If interested in Seattle, there are new hires for phds at Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Lots of other companies would hire you, but those places hire lots of new phds. Mine was a top 30 us, so basically invisible, and I had lots of companies trying to hire me.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#158

Post by stephenboyd »

So Newfoundland has been paying to relocate communities since the 1950s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettlement_(Newfoundland)

I'm looking through the government's publications to try to understand this better. Does anyone here know if the relocation assistance includes any help relocating the community intact to a new location, or are they simply being paid to dissolve the community and leave? It would be interesting to see these folks all given neighbouring properties in a city so they can hold onto their social capital together.

http://www.ma.gov.nl.ca/faq/faq_relocation.html http://www.ma.gov.nl.ca/publications/relocation/Community%20...

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#159

Post by sdm »

allendoerfer wrote: post #115
greggarious wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American, so take what I say with a grain of salt... but maybe part of it is that Canada has a small population but a large land area. There's basically four major cities a Millenial would consider: Vancouver, Toronto, Monteal, and Ottawa. (And I've heard the latter crapped on even by Canadians.) Montreal is lovely, but if you're an Anglophone. Compare with the United States: New York is a large city, but I co…

What is holding people from Vancouver off to move to Portland?

There is a big culture difference.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#160

Post by tjl »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #157
tjl wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do know. I've been trying to find a job and I have an Engineering Ph.D. from University of Waterloo which is considered one of the best in the country. Companies in the US often hire from UW (Microsoft has traditionally been a big hirer), but I'm overqualified in one sense, but I don't have the work experience people want.

CS PhD in Engineer? If interested in Seattle, there are new hires for phds at Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Lots of other companies would hire you, but those places hire lots of new phds. Mine was a top 30 us, so basically invisible, and I had lots of companies trying to hire me.

Not in CS, it was in Systems Design Engineering. My Ph.D. was more mechanical than anything. My Master's had a big CS component as I was affiliated with the computer graphics lab (my Master's co-supervisor was part of the lab until he retired to look after his wife). I did most of the numerical CS courses and all the CS computer graphics courses.

There's not much call for my particular skill set, unfortunately. I interviewed for a position in Google X, but it was a very strange interview and I didn't get past that, despite giving a very thorough answer for the pre-interview problem they posed.

Post reply on HN