CanadaPlus

I mean, probably but:

foxnews.com

Really?

A link to the report itself.

I'm going to skim through, because I'm really wondering how they decided which things are exposed and how. The abstract makes it sound like they just went by sector, and while that's a good simple option, I think it would miss a lot of important nuance. LLMs are set to totally wreck advertising copy writers, but only feed electrical engineering jobs. Both just look like a college education at the very coarse level.

Edit: So, they've broken down jobs into low-exposure, high-exposure low-complementarity and high-exposure high-complementarity, which includes all the prestige-y occupations. Then they actually do look at the fine-grained occupations level.

The one thing I find suspect is the complementarity, which I'm still looking for the sources on. It seems to me a lawyer is just as likely to be laid off as their assistant, if not more, since most of them just sit behind paperwork all day anyway, while the assistant has a name and a personality. They offer some alternate scenarios in the appendix because I guess I wasn't the only skeptic.

In the model with no complementarity, inequality actually collapses because capital income doesn't increase as fast as it decreases for the fancy occupations. It has problems too though - overall income goes down, which doesn't really make sense.

Edit 2: Here's their source. Basically, they consider which occupations are likely to be protected by legal and social factors, and then just literally adjust for prestige ("job zone") because they figure more prestigious people will have better opportunity to adapt. Personally, I suspect they underestimate the market's tendency to cut all corners, and overestimate their own adaptability. Thank you to anyone that actually read this far, haha.

Lemmy doesn't really have the traffic to support ultra-niche communities in general yet, sadly.

Those are answers that don't factor in immigration at all. And are still deceptively complicated.

Housing is an investment, just as much as the foundry that makes the front doorknob. Both are critical to our standard of living, but both also cost a lot of money to put in place. Somebody will have to pay to build more. That could be the government, like you're saying, or it could be developers who are looking to cache in on the high prices and therefor bring them down. Which one should do it is complicated.

Not intractable, though.

Lying is universal, and lying about the thing you attacked is trendy this century.

I wonder if the decision makers in this case knew it was a lie from the start, of if their intelligence people were giving them what they wanted to find. Or maybe both, like the Iraqi WMDs.

Ah, but who will build it? Obviously not immigrants. What if you build housing, but then they can't afford it? What if they're underhoused where they came from, too? And then of course, if we don't take in immigrants and the economy goes in the toilet, all the housing there is might get pretty run down for the elderly Canadians still left.

If you actually read the article, you'll see several examples of how it's complex.

And people are so conditioned to this they'll probably get away with it.

Maybe, but then they should really ask for my mailing address, which is different. Or, you know, just don't apply their contest policies to a legal settlement.

I had a bit of gas, but that could have just been the fiber. I think I'm good.

Messed up, but not really surprising. All the people evangelical churches send to Africa have made an impact.

That kind of makes sense, I guess. I wonder how expensive one of those machines is.

I always look forward to the stuff he writes, even if I occasionally read one and think he's missed the point.