[-]

SaxManSteve@reddit (OP)

SS: The Canadian Government runs an independent "think tank" called Policy Horizons Canada that's mandated to provide a realistic assessment of what the economic/social/political landscape will look like in the future. Their goal is to help the rest of the federal bureaucracy make better policies and programs by providing them with the foresight of what is most likely to lie ahead.

Their most recent report came out last week: Future Lives: Social mobility in question. In it, they recommend that policymakers anticipate that by 2040, wealth and income inequality will limit upward social mobility to such a degree that could change many of the fundamental beliefs people have about their role in society. They warn that these changes could cause disruptions that would fundamentally change how policymakers prioritize and conceptualize the main issues affecting Canadian society.

Some highlights from the report:

A return to an aristocratic culture

In 2040, people see inheritance as the only reliable way to get ahead. Society increasingly resembles an aristocracy. Wealth and status pass down the generations. Family background – especially owning property – divides the ‘haves’ from the ‘have-nots’.

Growing disconnect economic expectations and economic reality

Advertising and marketing discourses continue to drive the desire to climb the social ladder, but economic realities leave most with limited expectations of success. Cognitive dissonance between what youth are programed to want and what they know they can expect, leads many to frustration and apathy. Only a few maintain a strong drive to innovate and succeed in traditional terms.

Labor unions make a comeback

Trade unions, including non-traditional freelancer unions, could grow in power as workers become frustrated. Job actions and strikes may disrupt economic development. This could reduce foreign direct investments in labour-intensive sectors such as manufacturing

Shrinking of the consumer economy

Since many people have less in this future and see no way to improve their status through consumption and display, they spend less. This could shrink the consumer economy. Some people might redefine success away from accumulating wealth and toward purposefulness or happiness. More people might be willing to job-hop for better work-life balance or more meaningful work.

The return of the barter economy, and how do you tax that?

Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety

People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase

Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs

Young people might stop seeing university education as being desirable.

As the old belief that post-secondary education (PSE) is a reliable path to upward mobility breaks and enrollments plummet, the sector may become a stranded asset. The expected social mobility returns from massive public investments in the sector may not happen. If so, popular support for the PSE system might decline, which could damage the sector’s contributions to economic growth through research and development

People will reject and possibly attempt to dismantle the systems that have failed them.

Some may blame the state. They may attack policies believed to favour older cohorts, who benefited from the era of social mobility. In extreme cases, people could reject the state’s legitimacy, leading to higher rates of tax evasion or other forms of civil disobedience

Some may choose to blame those with capital, whether it is social, economic, or decision-making capital

Others may choose to blame immigrants, or another identifiable group. If such scapegoating becomes widespread, it could generate serious social or political conflicts

[-]

Ghostwoods@reddit

Difficult to argue with any of that, except perhaps the optimistic date. The rest of it really feels just like a description of the current state of affairs.

[-]

Thedogdrinkscoffee@reddit

Current state based on the last 10 years of this.

[-]

GloryholesAnonymous@reddit

Ya exactly. This is happening right now in Canada, forget 2040. I'd be surprised if this isn't in full swing by 2030...

[-]

Grimekat@reddit

I already see diminishing utility in university. People always ask me if I would go back to law school or whether they should go and the answer is a resounding no.

Don’t go to law school. You’ll be forced to live in Toronto and you won’t be able to afford a house. You’re better off finding some sort of occupation where you can live in like Cornwall or Sarnia.

[-]

K10111@reddit

Wise man once said, by 2030 if your not really rich your going to spend most of your life slightly hungry.

[-]

rematar@reddit

Interesting article and great summary. Thank you.

[-]

feo_sucio@reddit

GOOD post

I think blaming immigrants and minorities for anything and everything is a foregone conclusion. Political trick as old as time. Sucks for those of us non-whites without an inheritance, of which we are many.

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

The way I see it and I may be wrong, but the state of affair regarding immigration is quite different than it was previously.

Previously it was mainly fostering xenophobia. The emergence of internet (international communication between citizens) neutralized a large part of that xenophobic reaction to immigrants.

The dynamic I perceive that is currently immerging with immigration, is a dilution of cultural heritage. This contribute to the further atomization of the individual. The resulting lost of social cohesion is quite a different beast to deal with than xenophobia.

Like I said, I may be wrong, but it seems pretty tangible to me that this is what is happening in regard to immigration. The post-nationalist ideology is real and I don't think the effect on society was well studied before going all-in on the idea. 1 out of 4 person in Canada is an immigrant. The population aversion to the current rate of immigration seems justified in regard to the lost of the cultural social cohesion.

The hate towards immigrants isn't justified, but in my opinion, it is concerning the rate of immigrations/immigration policies.

[-]

chroma_src@reddit

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but I would disagree that you can frame policies of immigration on this need for profit.

I know government are more and more answering the demands of private corporations with the immense lobbying pressure they can put on administrations. But my understanding is that there is a blatant demographic crisis going on due to all the birth rate falling in the developed nations and bringing in immigrants is their "band-aid" to fix the crisis.

You need to understand that demographic crisis to have a view of immigration based on reality and not solely based on malevolent greedy actors.

[-]

chroma_src@reddit

The point is abandoning existing citizens by bringing in more, causing resources such as housing etc harder to gain access to, is negative and breeds resentment. It's under the guise of saving a few nickles and a demographic crisis. And in the end, all will be screwed and left out in the rain.

The sentiment wouldn't be so negative if there were sufficient access to resources by people born here. when an "aging population" ought to make things like housing and compensation via work more plentiful, it's now harder than ever. Of course that will cause unrest. Of course that will cause birth rates to continue to stagnate or even fall further. It's extraction and abandonment, cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Not enough variables have been considered. It's a doomed strategy.

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

I appreciate you expressing your thoughts more thoroughly. I could only extrapolate very little from the image you commented previously.

Could you explain in more detail the point about the aging population making things like compensation(making money if I understand correctly) more plentiful ?

I have a superficial knowledge of the demographic crisis but my understanding of the consequence on the economic reality was based on the fact that less working individuals would be contributing to the pensions of retirees.

I think we both agree that BAU could simply not continue and we could have perfectly viable options for our societies outside of bringing in more immigrants to keep it going.

[-]

chroma_src@reddit

It's a matter of competition on the side of employers needing to compete for labour (and landlords competing for tenants, etc). They want cheaper labour and to not compete, and thus are incentivized to push for flooding the labour pool with newcomers, depressing wages, shifting the competition onto the citizens born in a given area vs the newcomers also seeking those same resources, housing and jobs.

This deepens demographic issues as young people do not have the financial security to establish their adult lives, let alone start families. In an era where there already were issues such as a loneliness epidemic, less sex among the young, etc, this approach exasperates the problem, furthering demographic and thus economic decline. More and more newcomers must be added to "cover" for this instability. It's not sustainable.

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

Alright I understand your point.

What about the need to pay retirees pensions with less working individuals/taxpayers ?

[-]

chroma_src@reddit

I'd say don't put the cart before the horse and to work up towards that instead of panicking, making the issue worse.

I believe there'd be more purchasing power

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

Don't you think the panic is justified considering the impeding wave of new retirees due to the boomer generation ?

[-]

chroma_src@reddit

No

You can't squeeze blood from a stone

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

I don't understand what you are implying with this idiom concerning all the new retirees.

"you can't take something from someone when they don't have it"

[-]

chroma_src@reddit

Is English your native language? I mean

You cannot reap where you've not sown

You need to spend money to make money

You need to invest in the young before you can take from them to find the elderly

People are an investment. You cannot give if you cannot look after yourself. Otherwise you have that cycle I mentioned previously of needing to endlessly add more people unsustainably, like a ponzi scheme

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

No english isn't my native language but I mentioned in my comment what the idiom you used meant. I simply don't understand how you are applying it to the demographic crisis and how it explained your "no" to my question about the panic.

"The problem is especially acute if these state programs operate on a pay-as-you-go principle, where pensions are funded by a share of the tax revenues from current workers. Of course, all other things being equal, the larger the number of retirees and the smaller the number of taxpayers, the larger the share of tax revenue state pension funds need. Not surprisingly, in some countries – such as Italy and France – the system is cracking."

This is what I'm referring to in regard to the demographic crisis/aging population and I don't understand what you are trying to convey with that idiom, sorry.

[-]

betweenlions@reddit

By en masse bringing in immigration to make up for falling GDP per capita and falling birth rates, the downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on infrastructure, we will all get poorer. In decades time, the masses of people we're continuously bringing in will also need their pensions propped up by even more immigration.. until the scheme is untenable, the whole working class will have raced to the bottom and those living in poverty may revolt.

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

I understand this point that was shared and Im not arguing it.

I said : "..bringing in immigrants is the "band-aid" to fix the crisis used by some governments."

Im not trying to strawman here .. So if I understand the point you both seem to agree on, there is a conspiracy from the governments to justify the current rate of immigration. The retirees portion to taxpayers is a false narrative and the policies implemented by governments and the government employees are malicious.

[-]

betweenlions@reddit

I personally believe all of our federal parties are being excessively lobbied and are pandering to large corporate interests in Canada with disregard to their citizens. They use social issues to distract from class war being waged on citizens. Canada is becoming an oligarchy like much of the West and we have no authentic political representation for working people.

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

I can't argue that our governments are getting closer to oligarchy disguised as a democracy than a real democracy. But I still think there is a degree of incompetence from lack of careful projections and that the immigration rate was a result of the panic from the aging population.

I think both justification aren't mutually exclusive. I do not believe it was all planned with malicious intent. I think this demographic problem would exist even if we had only good faith actors in the government. It simply is the result of an aging population.

I think it was mismanaged and I expressed that in my previous comments.

[-]

betweenlions@reddit

Thanks for your thoughts. I would agree with the sentiment that both justification isn't mutually exclusive. I don't believe it's fully malicious intent as well. I think it's consistent small capitulations to corporate interests, adding up to larger consequences over time, rooted in incompetence, a lack of foresight and excessive faith in capitalism to work itself out.

[-]

PeanutTraditional568@reddit

You can't never rule out conspiracies but reality has a lot of nuance to it.

[-]

AgentEgret@reddit

Labor unions make a comeback

Sweet!

Shrinking of the consumer economy

Great!

Some people might redefine success away from accumulating wealth and toward purposefulness or happiness. More people might be willing to job-hop for better work-life balance or more meaningful work.

Still failing to see the bad...

The return of the barter economy

Okay, but rather it be called mutual aid

Small-scale agriculture could increase

Excellent idea!

Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs

Awesomeness!

Young people might stop seeing university education as being desirable.

I wish older people would stop pushing university education as a solution to everything. Because it's not.

People will reject and possibly attempt to dismantle the systems that have failed them.

Do we have to wait until 2040?

Some may blame the state.

If the shoe fits...

Some may choose to blame those with capital, whether it is social, economic, or decision-making capital

Ummm, well, it is their fault.

Others may choose to blame immigrants, or another identifiable group. If such scapegoating becomes widespread, it could generate serious social or political conflicts

They already do this, and unfortunately they're poised to elect a shitty grifter PM, his name is Little PP. But the guy who just resigned is shitty, too. They're all shitty. Make politicians irrelevant again.

[-]

80taylor@reddit

I love your optimism :). May we carry that with us through the coming social changes, haha

[-]

FinalFcknut@reddit

My thoughts exactly. I'd give you an award but can't afford it.

[-]

jonathanfv@reddit

People might find alternative ways to meet their basic needs

Housing, food, childcare, and healthcare co-operatives may become more common. This could ease burdens on social services but also challenge market-based businesses
Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety
People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase
Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs. People might find alternative ways to meet their basic needs Housing, food, childcare, and healthcare co-operatives may become more common. This could ease burdens on social services but also challenge market-based businesses Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs

What a tragedy. Honestly, as an anarchist, I think that this part cannot come soon enough. And if there is ever a left wing government in Canada, I sure hope that it would be a fairly libertarian-left one, so that they could encourage building decentralized social structures that are resilient to economic woes and climate change. That's a part that annoys the hell out of me. The government knows it's coming. We know it's coming. Everyone who isn't a moron knows that we'll eventually need mutual aid and what is not considered dual power structures. We should be building it up now so that the transition is easier and less shitty for everyone.

[-]

robpensley@reddit

Does the US have anything like the Policy Horizons Canada? I don't know of such a thing.

But then, they could just take what's written here, and use it.

[-]

lunchbox_tragedy@reddit

Bureaucratically stark - that’s how you can tell it’s legit

[-]

Shoddy-Childhood-511@reddit

All sounds like healthy good news. :)

[-]

Professional-Can6402@reddit

We need more luigi’s

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

Alternate title: Canadian government report advises policymakers to plan for a future where all their policies had exactly the effects they were predicted to have.

[-]

nicotiana_rustica@reddit

Isn't that the truth.

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

A "future" of downward mobility?

Um... look behind you.

ffs, Canada - your people are looking at state sponsored euthanasia as a retirement plan. If you don't change course, your near term future is the United States - where billionaires own everything from the government to the land to the food to the water. Your long term future is the abyss. (Just like everyone else.)

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

I always hate it when people say that about euthanasia

Firstly, we still have a middle class in Canada, unlike the US

What do you want people with terminal illnesses to do, exactly? My mom chose MAID. My dad never had that choice. The way that he actually died was almost unthinkable really

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

I'm sorry for your loss. Truly.

But I'm not talking about terminal illness. I'm talking about Amir Farsoud, who applied for MAID in 2022 because he was homeless. Unable to work, so unable to afford rent, he asked to die and Canada obliged - but then his life was saved by a GoFundMe that raised over $60k.

This is not a feel-good story.

If Canada is not careful, there will be lots more Amir Farsouds. GoFundMe can't save them all.

You don't get any points for "At least we're better than America!" That's not a flex. America sucks. America is owned by a handful of billionaire weirdos who would burn the whole world as long as they get to rule the ashes. They own everything. Nestle pulls hundreds of millions of gallons of water from Michigan's aquifers; bottles it and then sells it to Michiganders for $1.40 a pop. How much does Nestle pay Michiganders for the rights to their water? $200 a year. Over 500,000 gallons a day for just 55 cents.

And now we're literally ruled by far-right billionaire oligarch morons.

No points for being better than the nicest 3rd world country on the planet, I'm afraid. America boasts 180,000 "deaths of despair" each year. An American commits suicide every 11 minutes.

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

Yeah...

I'm really not a fan of people like Amir who use the MAID program as a go fund me. I mean, it's a smart way to rapidly escalate requests for help from a selfish perspective, but it really should not be a valid reason to apply for MAID, and it lets people have a really shitty argument against MAID

America sucks so badly the entire third world and much of the developed world would trade places in a split second. We take our wins where we find them

The MAID program is a net plus when measured in the amount of suffering it has helped, people like Amir should find a better way to draw attention to their cause. I think it's an abuse of the system, but I can't really blame them. Change the rules to make sure those whose complaint is primarily poverty are not accepted

Ideally, we would fix our economy. At least in part, that involves doing business with countries OTHER than the US to diversify our economies. So while the tariffs suck and will cause a lot of pain, if they force our economy to diversify while there is some good in it, and it's something our government should have done generations ago.

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

Farsoud didn't create the GoFundMe. Some stranger did after he read about Amir in the news. Farsoud was prepared to die rather than go back to being homeless.

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

It was an entirely inappropriate use of the MAID system, and people who use it that way risk MAID being shut down for the wrong reasons, and then more people will suffer

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

smh, how is it possible to miss the point this badly? Farsoud's execution was approved by the same government who set up the MAID system in the first place. Farsoud didn't abuse anything. He was choosing a quick death over slowly freezing and starving to death on the winter streets because there was no other option.

No one is getting rid of the MAID program for actual terminal patients. But Amir Farsoud was GOING TO DIE. Not from a terminal illness, but from terminal stage capitalism. And you tried to blame Farsoud! What is wrong with you?

"People in the poorest countries on earth; suffering from crippling poverty and strife due to Western imperialism would love to live in the US" is not a flex. It's copium.

"We take our wins where we find them" wtf are you talking about? They are ending civilization. There are no wins. You live in a fantasy world. What are you even doing in r/Collapse if you don't even know the basics of what's going on?

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

Was it approved?

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

YES, it was approved. Farsoud was approved in Summer of 2022 - and scheduled to DIE in November 2022.

He celebrates the anniversary of his death appointment now.

You don't know anything about collapse. You know very little about capitalism. I've never seen anyone in here who was so ignorant and intellectually incurious. What's your deal?What are you even doing here? Did you get lost? Did hear about r/collapse in optimistsunite and decide you need to spread your copium?

[-]

collapse-ModTeam@reddit

Hi, mygoditsfullofstar5. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:

Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.

You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

there are a jillion ways to off yourself

all Farsoud needed was a belt and something to tie it off. There's an option.

but from terminal stage capitalism

WRONG

I love capitalism. Capitalism is great, however in order to work it needs a government to yoke the capitalist. For the government to work, it needs the people to hold the government accountable.

There is no failure of capitalism here.

What we have is a failure of government, a corruption of the government, due to one single reason really: a failure of the people to hold the government accountable.

In Canada, we have the situation we have, because the people allow it. That's the only way this works. Its us. There is no one else to blame, not the dirty pig dog capitalist, not the corrupt bureacrats, only us

We have some sort of middle class, in Canada, largely for one reason and one reason only: because we have a basic socialized healthcare system.

That's a solid win; it's not even debatable in my book

They are ending civilization. There are no wins

Yes there are. A socialized healthcare system is a win.

Yes, we're all going to burn anyway. Now go away: you're annoying

[-]

Claymore357@reddit

The dude was going to die of hypothermia from lack of shelter. Dying in a warm hospital bed with belly full is comparatively luxurious

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

Poverty is not a valid reason for euthanasia. Nobody was going to approve the application.

These are people who are using the MAID system to get money. They know they aren't going to die. They are using it to manipulate people into giving them money. I'm not blaming them I'm just saying: The entire premise is bullshit

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

"there are a jillion ways to off yourself"

smh... what is wrong with you?

"Capitalism is great!/We're all going to burn!" lol, what are you doing here?

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

This has very little, if anything, to do with capitalism.

There is only one thing that can stop the harm we see in the world. Us. There is no help coming. It's only us

It doesn't matter what system we are ruled under the elites will still be the elites and burn the world down regardless. The only question that matters is: what are we going to do about it? There is nobody else but we. Capitalism is not relevant, except that it might save us, but only if saving us is actually profitable.

Frankly I kind of see that as a good thing. If we can't figure out a profitable way to save ourselves, that's the end of us. I guess maybe we weren't worth it

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

Farsoud's execution

bullshit. That's actually a flat out lie

you mean: suicide

[-]

soimnotblind@reddit

The canadian government does not allow poverty as a reason for euthanasia. It's sad I have to state that this is misinfo. Farsoud's application was never approved. He withdrew it before it was, or before it was likely denied. I have experience dealing with canada's medical systems.

Both of you should read the terms and conditions for MAID on the canadian government website. Because neither of you arguing are familiar.

Farsoud himself said “The people using it are the people deemed throwaways. If society can’t be bothered to give them the dignity in life, then the least they can do is give them the five minutes of dignity before death,. I agree with him. He also said that the government should be doing more to lift people out of poverty and support the disabled to prevent this bs and eliminate the MAID conundrum all together, and I agree.

As a disabled fellow in canada like Farsoud. I have to face similar sad problems. But it seems our government cares little for us and is not likely to improve, cons in power in my province and likely soon federally. So the little gov support I get prolly isn't gonna be better. So I want to be allowed my 5 mins of dignity before death.

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

Well good; it should have been denied, because it's a bullshit reason to apply. So the entire argument was based on a false premise. We were arguing over bullshit that literally does not exist. Thats 10 mins I'll never get back

Frankly we all have a natural human right to choose our moment. Unfortunately, it does not come with a right to dignity

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html#s1

Poverty is not listed here

Was Amir Farsoud's application approved?

[-]

rematar@reddit

Have you watched Humane?

[-]

mygoditsfullofstar5@reddit

I'd never heard of it til you mentioned it, but I just watched the trailer and it is... intriguing. lol.

Was the movie as good as the trailer?

[-]

rematar@reddit

I didn't watch the trailer. I saw this post the other day. I quite liked it. It's not a highly polished production.

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/s/4Hn5qpfp1C

[-]

K10111@reddit

Good news an economist has emerged has front runner for Liberal party leadership, I’m sure he was reverse this trend /s

[-]

Own_Ant_7448@reddit

This is now, except for the unions bit

[-]

bizzybaker2@reddit

Seriously? As a Gen X Canadian, the future is pretty much already here, 2040 is being optimistic. I weep for my Gen Z kids in their early and mid 20's, I can see myself when I was their age in the late 80's/early 90's, how hard it has been for them to try and get launched, and how much more opportunity I had than them :(

[-]

nicotiana_rustica@reddit

As a Canadian that just turned fifty, I can't understand why anyone from my generaton who wasn't rich brought kids into this. As a teen I watched Multiculturalism become the State religion, NAFTA get passed, and immigration become decoupled from economic performance, to which it had always been tied in Canada. And chiefly non white immigration, too, whose drawbacks we are now witnessing.

[-]

bizzybaker2@reddit

I sadly was not collapse aware when I had my kids (24 and 22 now)...knew some things were happening but certainly did not have a concept of the entire big picture. Love them dearly, but if I knew them what I know now would have been childless.

[-]

nicotiana_rustica@reddit

I suppose I had an unfair advantage in that having been born in Vancouver.

I hope your children have as good a run on this planet as they possibly can, my friend. Thank you for the response.

[-]

Sharp-Difference1312@reddit

Im that age. What we really need from your generation is for you all to be very vocal about how unhappy you are, particularly with the state of housing. It’s by far the biggest issue impacting young Canadians.

[-]

AbominableGoMan@reddit

Tax the fucking rich?

[-]

mongoljungle@reddit

Pretty much all single family homeowners in metro areas are rich. They are certainly not voting to raise property taxes

[-]

AbominableGoMan@reddit

Are you a right-wing troll? It's typically the right who are so poorly educated they think the class enemy are people who... checks notes... own a home. And work a job to pay the mortgage. People that get a biweekly pay-cheque aren't the rich. The rich are the people who make money off of having money. Stop being their tool.

[-]

mongoljungle@reddit

I'm stating what's written in the report that people who own tend to own multiple homes while also voting against building more housing and rent control:

In 2040, owning a home is not a realistic goal for many. Most new homeowners get help from family members. Some take out intergenerational mortgages and have several generations of family living togetherFootnote2. Others enter alternative household mortgages with friends. A growing percentage of homeowners also own rental properties. They oppose policies to expand the housing supply or freeze rents. Inequality between those who rent and those who own has become a key driver of social, economic, and political conflict.

[-]

AbominableGoMan@reddit

Are you against home ownership?

[-]

mongoljungle@reddit

the current homeownership model is making it harder for others to become homeowners.

[-]

Ramboi88@reddit

How are they doing that ?

[-]

mongoljungle@reddit

from the report

A growing percentage of homeowners also own rental properties. They oppose policies to expand the housing supply or freeze rents. Inequality between those who rent and those who own has become a key driver of social, economic, and political conflict.

[-]

Ramboi88@reddit

This guys thinking is going to be a major problem in the future.

[-]

rematar@reddit

Not in my opinion.

It's delusional to be counting on paper that you have more paper money than others due to a perceived value of property, while the majority of three generations can not afford the inflated price.

[-]

rematar@reddit

The rich are the people who make money off of having money.

That's a landlord. The other commenter appears to be making the point that some people will see landlords as being wealthy and may act out against them.

I don't know either of you, but your use of the term troll looks like projection from my sofa.

[-]

AbominableGoMan@reddit

There is a world of difference between someone who rents a suite in their home, or even that has a second investment property, and the actual owners of capital. If your ignorance of the world and the history of class struggle is genuine, it's still indistinguishable from the sort of wealth envy that rightwing trolls project on progressives. Your dentist or electrician aren't your class enemies just because they're doing well. We should all be doing well. The four families who own more wealth than half of Canadians combined are the problem. The multinationals using us as a tax haven and writing self-serving laws are.

My friends that have million dollar mortgages for old, modest homes certainly aren't rich. They're vulnerable to a system that sees banks making outsize, record profits. Even with a tenant in an illegal basement suite they're still just making ends meet. Meanwhile evil companies like Starlight get massive tax breaks.

[-]

Ramboi88@reddit

Good question is whats the definition of ‘rich’ in future?

[-]

Will_2020@reddit

Hunt them

[-]

throwaway-lolol@reddit

"we're only 3 or 4 CEOs away from free healthcare"

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

I mean if they see hunting, fishing, growing food and barter as a threat what is left to put food on the table really

[-]

Educational_Two_6905@reddit

That's why higher percentage of the Canadian young generation want to join the US. When Canadian dream dies, they can at least try the American one.

[-]

Any_Nail_637@reddit

I am glad they are being so positive. In reality as people see their quality of life decline there will be more social unrest. Increased crime and homelessness. As tax revenues decline so will all basic social institutions. Healthcare, social safety net, pension will be reduced or fail. Sounds like fun. The rich better start building their gated communities with armed guards.

[-]

JHandey2021@reddit

I strongly suspect that a lot of people who already have theirs aren't shedding any tears over a future like this. Some may write a few checks, donate a little food, but otherwise? They're doing great. If you have a house and enough money already, congratulations! You're the new aristocracy.

Has any political party in the world since, I don't know, the fall of the Soviet Union won an election on the platform "hey, your house, the one that our entire society has socialized you to believe will go up in value forever because that is the nature of the universe? The one you're probably going to need as a nest egg when you retire? Yeah, let's cut its value by 50 percent to give people who don't already own real estate a better shot at having their own houses."

I'd honestly love to know what political party would dare go into an election saying that. Canada's more extreme than the U.S. on this front, but the U.S. has similar dynamics, as does every other industrialized country (including China). I think a lot of nice and kind homeowners (I'm one, too, so I don't excuse myself) will vote for goose-stepping fascists and barbecues of endangered species on their front lawns before a meaningful reduction in their home values (of course, most homeowners have the specter of what happens to them if they ever lose their house hanging over them - climate change doesn't really care about your home price, and a megastorm will happily squash all your carefully appreciated home value flat like a bug. The insurance industry knows that, for one. But that's another story).

Now, maybe UBI will help sidestep some of this. Maybe something else can on the fringes of heterodox economics. But I promise you that under the present rules of the game that everyone is playing, we're all kind of sliding into aristocracy.

[-]

FoxTheory@reddit

The most modern a society has ever been with more than enough to go around and yet here we are the future looking breaker every day.

[-]

Cautious_Rope_7763@reddit

If Canada was admitted to the U.S., would that help?

[-]

Kitsunemitsu@reddit

Fuck off. I'll fight you to the death.

[-]

collapse-ModTeam@reddit

Hi, Kitsunemitsu. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:

Report this sort of comment, don't R1 yourself.

Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

Rule 1: Be respectful to others. In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.

You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

[-]

collapse-ModTeam@reddit

Hi, Cautious_Rope_7763. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:

Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.

You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

[-]

AtrociousMeandering@reddit

Are you under the impression the US is doing even mildly better in any of these categories?

[-]

Mug_of_coffee@reddit

Cost of living, for sure.

[-]

AtrociousMeandering@reddit

Whether the US has a lower cost of living is hard to put numbers to, more Canadians live in the expensive metro areas compared to the US, which increases the average, but especially when healthcare is factored in the US is still an expensive place to live.

More importantly, IMO, is that the US is very likely to cause a massive and unnecessary increase to it's cost of living in the next year or two, and Canada joining the IS would do nothing to solve their current issues.

[-]

AtrociousMeandering@reddit

According to? All of the data that comes up on a Google search for me is saying the US is more expensive when you account for location.

[-]

Cautious_Rope_7763@reddit

No, but there's safety in numbers. Canada is forty million people stretched along a thin band across a continent. And over that band is mostly tundra.

[-]

AtrociousMeandering@reddit

Neither of those make any damn sense in this context. If you want to say things, you had better be able to explain why they're relevant to the conversation, and neither of those are.

Safety in numbers implies there is a threat which has a limited ability to inflict harm, and thus in large enough numbers the chance to be affected by it goes down. A larger herd of zebras protects any one zebra because the lions will stop as soon as they've brought any of them down- if you have 50 zebras, the threat to any individual is halved by increasing the group to 100 zebras. These threats we're discussing in this thread have no such limit, and the more people subject to their effects, the greater the damage. Thus, there is no safety in numbers here, and bringing it up is not making you look smart.

Nor is Canada's geography either the cause of, or a solution to, the problems in the article. It straight up has no bearing on the conversation. Canada is not looking at apathy, disengagement, and a reduction in social mobility because they're a 90 degree rotated Chile, they're looking at those problems because of how they've chosen to govern themselves. And the US's problems with governing itself are worse than Canada's and about to drop off a fucking cliff.

Trump is not offering a solution to any of the problems in the report, he's going to make every single one of them worse and catalyze the negative outcomes Canadians might like to avoid.

[-]

fiodorsmama2908@reddit

Its going to be similar, with private healthcare and a lot more guns floatin' around

[-]

Utter_Rube@reddit

Same list, but with the loss of universal healthcare and addition of regular school shootings.

[-]

rematar@reddit

Myself and my kids see no value in the current public school system besides losing faith in getting a piece of paper from a secondary school.

[-]

darkpsychicenergy@reddit

Sounds like they used AI to scrape, categorize and summarize comments on this sub. I wonder what this think tank got paid by the government for this.

[-]

rematar@reddit

That's a weird assumption. Insurance companies seem to have figured it out as well.

[-]

Smokron85@reddit

Judging by how much the Trudeau govt has operated in the past, probably a lot.

[-]

Delicious_Crow_7840@reddit

That's a nice way of framing food shortages and the collapse of the civil order.

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

This report sounds wonderful, in a way.

What I mean by that is this: things already ARE this way. That is how it IS and how it HAS been for rather a long time.

This article makes it sound like people are waking up, and there is potential for them to DO something about it.

The return of the barter economy, and how do you tax that?

Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs

This sounds positive except for the part where they ignore hunting and fishing regulations.

Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs

This is the ONLY REASON why the government would care: It perceives possible threats to itself. It's not really concerned with threats to the people: it sees the survival of government as it's primary goal.

Prediction and logical conclusion:

The Canadian government will start chipping away at our fundamental rights to barter, trade, hunt, fish and grow our own food: not to PROTECT CANADIANS but to PROTECT GOVERNMENT. They will do this under the guise of CONSUMER SAFETY: It's for your own good, citizen.

We should immediately start taking direct action, and by that I mean completely non-violent, peaceful, gentle direct action to insist that our politicians enshrine certain undeniable rights: they should become charter rights:

The right to hunt and fish

The right to grow food

The right to barter and trade

It appears to me that the government will quite literally be coming for the food on our tables. They see these rights as threats.

I am no fan of poachers, nobody should be decimating the fisheries stocks and selling massive amounts of cod; I'm saying that the right to hunt and fish for the sustenance of self, the sustenance of family ought to be a charter right.

It appears to me that if we don't demand it, we are likely to lose more rights.

The government is only happy when the people have no recourse but to depend on the government. If taking the food off our table facilitates their goals, at this point, we should assume that they will do it without hesitation.

The time is near, my fellow Canadians. We are a gentle, peaceful people: we are often willing to negotiate and compromise in order to get along. It is time to awaken; I don't mean get WOKE I just mean it is time to focus on the fundamentals:

Factory farms and centralized control has been destroying the environment.

There are arguments to support at least some decentralized food production. We should be cautious: bird flu and similar problems could be used as arguments to shut down family farms or small scale farms: "It's for your own good, citizen"

There are definitely some small farmers who are irresponsible, who will not take responsibility for their animals in a pandemic but the majority are salt of the earth.

Nobody is going to become wealthy by doing these things; these things are not a threat to anyone except the government. These are ways by which the average person, the hard working person, the every day Canadian can help to put healthy food on their tables in an honest, peaceful way:

The right to hunt and fish

The right to grow food

The right to barter and trade

We should not permit any politician, any civil servant, any bureaucrat, or any laws to stand in our way. These rights must be seen to be simple, basic human rights.

[-]

AbominableGoMan@reddit

Government is bad because: lists all the problems that capitalism causes.

[-]

IGnuGnat@reddit

I love capitalism: capitalism is life, but it requires a government to yoke the capitalist for the people... and there is only one group that can hold the government and the capitalists accountable:

the people.

Capitalist gonna capitalist

At the end of the day, the "failures" of capitalism are the failures of the government; thus the reality is they are failures of the people.

There ain't nobody else to do the job at the end of the day

[-]

andiforbut@reddit

The idea that the rich are going to be able to insulate themselves from what is coming is delusional. Once the people that have been thrown away realize all they have to do is start a fire to get even we are all cooked… just look at LA. We need to create opportunities so people can believe in the future. Most people just want to know they have a safe place to call home, that they have enough food to eat and that they can see a doctor if they need it. As a society we need to mobilize and build a future that has a place for everyone.

[-]

manuntitled@reddit

Life will be just fine guys, don't overthink it. We had a rough period/ patch infact every country is suffering in some way. We will find way to fix things.

[-]

luv2block@reddit

Some may choose to blame those with capital, whether it is social, economic, or decision-making capital

wtf, who do you think runs the world? It's people with capital. Most of it ill-gotten through a wide variety of tax loopholes for the rich (yes, Canada has a TON of tax loopholes, no different than the US).

This shit ain't rocket science. Governments focused on banking and engineering and neglected every other aspect of their societies. So now we have this tech-focused and banking-focused world that is devoid of any humanity.

Not sure how they think they can run an inhumane system that is filled with humans. Seems like it's only a matter of time until the humans fight back.

[-]

A_Novelty-Account@reddit

I have capital. I don’t have nearly enough of it for my opinion to actually matter.

[-]

fitbootyqueenfan2017@reddit

Bonsoir, Elliot.

[-]

Arceuthobium@reddit

Well, this report is aimed mainly at those with capital. Of course it's obvious that the current socioeconomic system is to blame for most of our troubles, but they can't say that. Anything to keep BAU in life support I guess.

[-]

BertTKitten@reddit

If this is the world the rich want, they better build really good bunkers.

[-]

MKIncendio@reddit

Zuckerberg’s already built his bunker. The others are following suit because it’s not a matter of convincing anymore; The rich rich already know what’s going to happen in the future, it’s a game of chicken for them at this point. It’s such a frustrating topic when people keep talking about ‘taxing the rich’ or ‘eating the rich’ when they’ve already began building or already built their escape plan. Those people seriously aren’t going to change. Whatever happened to them when they were young beit trauma or indoctrination, whatever happened that resulted in them becoming the obsessed narcissist sociopaths they are now has spilled over, and it’s hard to find a way to forgive them

[-]

Gretschish@reddit

They’ll get their comeuppance. That is one of the few things I am certain about with regard to the future.

[-]

MKIncendio@reddit

Yeah. Either we’ll get to see it or our children, but we will see it!

Like all other attempts, this too will fail. They reach out for God and fall… every time

[-]

Will_2020@reddit

wef says that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy with it

[-]

Smokron85@reddit

Jesus christ. I knew 2040 was shaping up to be bad but this is pretty dire and it's on tbe official gov website lmao.

[-]

itsasnowconemachine@reddit

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever." -- George Orwell, 1984

[-]

Hilda-Ashe@reddit

They don't even bother trying to hide it anymore, eh?

[-]

LazyZealot9428@reddit

Sounds about right

[-]

fitbootyqueenfan2017@reddit

you don't say? already here. good luck gen A M and Z

[-]

StatementBot@reddit

The following submission statement was provided by /u/SaxManSteve:

SS: The Canadian Government runs an independent "think tank" called Policy Horizons Canada that's mandated to provide a realistic assessment of what the economic/social/political landscape will look like in the future. Their goal is to help the rest of the federal bureaucracy make better policies and programs by providing them with the foresight of what is most likely to lie ahead.

Their most recent report came out last week: Future Lives: Social mobility in question. In it, they recommend that policymakers anticipate that by 2040, wealth and income inequality will limit upward social mobility to such a degree that could change many of the fundamental beliefs people have about their role in society. They warn that these changes could cause disruptions that would fundamentally change how policymakers prioritize and conceptualize the main issues affecting Canadian society.

Some highlights from the report:

A return to an aristocratic culture

In 2040, people see inheritance as the only reliable way to get ahead. Society increasingly resembles an aristocracy. Wealth and status pass down the generations. Family background – especially owning property – divides the ‘haves’ from the ‘have-nots’.

Growing disconnect economic expectations and economic reality

Advertising and marketing discourses continue to drive the desire to climb the social ladder, but economic realities leave most with limited expectations of success. Cognitive dissonance between what youth are programed to want and what they know they can expect, leads many to frustration and apathy. Only a few maintain a strong drive to innovate and succeed in traditional terms.

Labor unions make a comeback

Trade unions, including non-traditional freelancer unions, could grow in power as workers become frustrated. Job actions and strikes may disrupt economic development. This could reduce foreign direct investments in labour-intensive sectors such as manufacturing

Shrinking of the consumer economy

Since many people have less in this future and see no way to improve their status through consumption and display, they spend less. This could shrink the consumer economy. Some people might redefine success away from accumulating wealth and toward purposefulness or happiness. More people might be willing to job-hop for better work-life balance or more meaningful work.

The return of the barter economy, and how do you tax that?

Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety

People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase

Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs

Young people might stop seeing university education as being desirable.

As the old belief that post-secondary education (PSE) is a reliable path to upward mobility breaks and enrollments plummet, the sector may become a stranded asset. The expected social mobility returns from massive public investments in the sector may not happen. If so, popular support for the PSE system might decline, which could damage the sector’s contributions to economic growth through research and development

People will reject and possibly attempt to dismantle the systems that have failed them.

Some may blame the state. They may attack policies believed to favour older cohorts, who benefited from the era of social mobility. In extreme cases, people could reject the state’s legitimacy, leading to higher rates of tax evasion or other forms of civil disobedience

Some may choose to blame those with capital, whether it is social, economic, or decision-making capital

Others may choose to blame immigrants, or another identifiable group. If such scapegoating becomes widespread, it could generate serious social or political conflicts

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1i2vei1/canadian_government_report_advises_policymakers/m7hpqbg/