Connect with us

Business

Is Working From Home Providing The Work-Life Balance That We’ve Been Promised For So Long?

Published

5 minute read

Our office work culture has dramatically shifted in the last month. All over the world kitchen tables, spare rooms, and nooks have been transformed into working spaces. The people I’ve spoken to really enjoy the perks of working from home. That’s not to say that there aren’t difficulties, but there are a lot of benefits that go with the challenges. 

For most white-collar jobs, working from home has provided the work-life balance that we’ve been promised for so long. Once things return to normal and kids return to school, we shouldn’t rush back to the office if we don’t have to. 

Being at home has allowed people to actually focus on their tasks without being interrupted by quick questions or sidebar chats. People are able to plan their workday on their own schedule and maximize their productivity. Without a daily commute, people are finding more time in the day and are less burnt out. 

And let’s face it, the office was never a great place to work, it was just our only option. 

There are a lot of flaws with our office culture that we’ve just learned to put up with. The biggest negative to the office environment is that it kills creativity. In order for people to be creative, they need space to think. When your day is filled with back to back meetings, email interruptions, and chatty co-workers it can be hard to find some time to yourself. I’ve always tried to take short walks a few times a day so that I’m able to let ideas sink into my brain. That can be a no-no in office culture since it’s believed you can only be productive when you are sitting at your desk. 

Sitting in a chair for 8 hours regardless of workload is standard across all sorts of industries. This is an antiquated idea leftover from the industrial revolution to maximize efficiency in a factory. While there are jobs that require this schedule, a knowledge worker is not one of them. A good portion of our day is answering emails, editing documents, reviewing work, and reporting numbers. Ever since the smartphone became mainstream we’ve known that this work can be done anywhere in the world, and now we know it can be done on a large scale. Maybe your best meetings happen when you can do 10 pushups right before it starts. It could be that a quick afternoon nap enables you to focus through the afternoon. I do my best thinking while pacing, but it’s hard to concentrate when everyone is giving you sideways glances. 

Working at your own pace will allow you to work your best.

As many people are also finding out, working at your own pace requires discipline. Setting your own schedule means you have to understand your own work habits and work within them.  I can be my own worst enemy when it comes to distractions. I’ve had to re-learn how to extract the best work from myself by self-evaluating my work. 

Not only are people getting more done, but they are happier about it, and learning more about themselves so they can be more productive in the future. 

When the COVID-19 risk lowers enough for offices to re-open, I suggest managers take a long hard look at reverting back to 40 hours a week in a chair. We’ve put a lot of effort into developing new skills during the quarantine and we shouldn’t waste it. There is an opportunity sitting before us to radically change what work is, and how we do it. Let’s embrace the lessons we’ve learned along the way and come out of this pandemic stronger than ever.

Read more on Todayville Calgary.

Health or wealth? Nations pressured to loosen virus rules

Follow Author

Business

Carbon tax costs taxpayers $200 million to administer

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Ryan Thorpe

The cost of administering the federal carbon tax and rebate scheme has risen to nearly $200 million since its inception in 2019.

That’s according to government records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and first reported by the online news site Blacklock’s Reporter.

The hit to taxpayers last year alone was $82.6 million, with the government assigning 465 full-time employees to administer the carbon tax and rebate scheme.

“The carbon tax is a double whammy for taxpayers,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “First, it makes our gas, heating and groceries more expensive. And then we’re forced to pay higher taxes to fund Trudeau’s battalion of carbon tax bureaucrats.”

The records were released in response to order paper questions from Conservative MP Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie-Mackenzie).

Carbon tax administration costs totaled $82.6 million in 2022, and $116.5 million between 2019 and 2021.

Last year, there were 223 bureaucrats “assigned to work on the collection of the fuel charge,” while 242 administered the rebate scheme.

Annual costs spiked last year as the government changed the rebate scheme “from a

refundable credit claimed annually on personal income tax returns, to [a] quarterly tax-free payment made through the benefit system,” according to the records.

“It should be obvious to everyone that the feds can’t raise taxes, skim hundreds-of-millions off the top and hire hundreds of new bureaucrats, then somehow make everyone better off with rebates,” Terrazzano said.

Cost to administer the carbon tax and rebate scheme, 2019 – 2022

Year

Total annual cost

Number of employees

2019

$33,219,471

256

2020

$40,541,290

316

2021

$42,766,636

333

2022

$82,628,993

465

The carbon tax will cost the average family up to $710 this year even after the rebates, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the federal government’s independent budget watchdog.

The carbon tax currently costs 14 cents per litre of gasoline and 12 cents per cubic metre of natural gas. By 2030, the carbon tax will cost 37 cents per litre of gasoline and 32 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.

“Canadians pay higher taxes so federal paper-pushers can increase our fuel prices and make our lives more expensive,” Terrazzano said. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can immediately make life more affordable by scrapping his carbon tax and taking some of the air out of his ballooning bureaucracy.”

Continue Reading

Business

Costly construction isn’t the culprit behind unaffordable housing

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Wendell Cox

Land restriction creates what amount to land cartels. A now smaller number of landowners gain windfall profits, which, of course, encourages speculation

The latest Demographia report on housing affordability in Canada, which I produce for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, reveals that over half of the 46 Canadian housing markets we assess are severely unaffordable. In fact, Vancouver and Toronto rank as third and 10th least affordable, respectively, among the 94 major global markets included in our latest international housing affordability study.

To evaluate housing costs, we utilize the “median multiple,” which divides the median house price within a given market (census metropolitan area) by its median household income. A multiple equal to or less than 3.0 is categorized as “affordable,” while anything exceeding 5.0 is labelled “severely unaffordable.”

Among the major Canadian housing markets, Vancouver (with a median multiple of 12), Toronto (9.5), Montreal (5.4), and Ottawa-Gatineau (5.2) fall into the severely unaffordable category. Vancouver has maintained a high median multiple for several decades, while Toronto has been in this range for approximately two decades. The increased prevalence of telecommuting has recently contributed to Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau’s affordability challenges, leading to a surge in demand for larger homes and properties in more distant suburbs. In contrast, housing in Edmonton (4.0) and Calgary (4.3) remains comparatively affordable.

In Toronto and Vancouver, the implementation of international urban planning principles, particularly those promoting anti-sprawl measures like greenbelts and agricultural preserves, has led to unprecedented price hikes. This “urban containment” approach has consistently driven up land values where it has been adopted. And high land values rather than increased construction costs are what explain the substantial disparity between severely unaffordable and more budget-friendly markets.

Land restriction creates what amount to land cartels. A now smaller number of landowners gain windfall profits, which, of course, encourages speculation. Maintaining or restoring affordability requires eliminating windfall profits by ensuring a competitive market for land.

Another issue arises from urban planners’ preference for higher-density housing, such as high-rise condos. Some households may prefer high-rise living, but families with children typically seek housing with more land, whether detached or semi-detached. When they’re priced out of good housing markets, their quality of life suffers and they may even fall into poverty.

The troubling paradox is that unaffordable housing is far more common in markets like Vancouver and Toronto, which have embraced the planning orthodoxy — which is supposed to produce affordable housing. The same applies to international markets like Sydney, Auckland, London and San Francisco, where urban containment and unaffordable housing have gone hand in hand.

What’s the solution? Give up on urban containment and make more land available for housing. But wouldn’t that threaten the natural environment, as critics of Ontario’s recent attempt to allow development of a sliver of its greenbelt argued?

Not at all. It’s true that land under cultivation in Canada has been declining steadily over the years. But the culprit is improved agricultural productivity, not urban expansion. According to Statistics Canada, between 2001 and 2021, agricultural land shrank 53,000 square kilometres. That’s about equal to the land area of Nova Scotia. And it’s about triple all the area urbanized since European settlement began. Even in Ontario and B.C. where most of the severely unaffordable markets are concentrated, urban expansion from 2016 to 2021 took up less than one-quarter of the agricultural loss over that period. Urban expansion is not squeezing out agricultural land.

Given all this, what should we do about affordability? In my view, three things:

First, it’s essential to acknowledge that Canadians are already addressing the issue by relocating from pricier to more affordable regions. Housing is more affordable in the Atlantic and Prairie provinces and areas in Quebec east of Montreal. So it’s not surprising there is now a net influx of people to smaller, typically more affordable, locations. In the past five years, markets with populations exceeding 100,000 have collectively witnessed over 250,000 people moving to smaller markets.

Second, make more land available for development in increasingly unaffordable markets like B.C., southern Ontario, and the Montreal-Ottawa corridor. One way is with “housing opportunity enclaves” (HOEs), in which traditional, i.e., not high-density, housing regulations would apply, but essential environmental and safety regulations would. The aim would be to provide middle-income housing at the price-to-income ratios that were typical before urban containment came along and housing across the country was largely affordable.

Market-driven development would be ensured by relying on the private sector to provide housing, land, and infrastructure, a model that has been successful in Colorado and Texas. Current residents would maintain their property rights but could sell to private parties and First Nations for development.

HOEs would be situated far enough outside major centres to take advantage of low-priced land, prioritizing areas with the largest recent agricultural land reductions. Communities likely would resemble Waverly West in Winnipeg or The Woodlands in Houston, with ample housing space and yards for families with children.

These new communities would attract people working at least partly from home. Jobs would naturally follow, creating self-contained communities where most commutes occurred within the HOE. To ensure a competitive market and prevent land cost escalation, HOEs must have ample land available.

Third, public authorities should allocate an ample amount of suburban land to safeguard reasonable land values in the Prairie and Atlantic provinces, as well as in Quebec east of Montreal. This would allow currently more affordable markets such as Quebec City, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Halifax to accommodate interprovincial migrants without jeopardizing their affordability.

Provincial and local governments would need to monitor housing affordability multiples on at least a five-year cycle, and legislatures, land use authorities and city councils would have to allow enough low-cost land development to maintain price-to-income stability.

It’s not enough just to provide enough building lots to meet projected demand. The goal should be to enable builders to provide housing at prices middle-income households can afford. The key to that is affordable land.

Wendell Cox is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is the author of 2023 Edition Of Demographia Housing Affordability In Canada and has been featured on Leaders on the Frontier – Cost of Living Under Crisis With Charles Blain.

Continue Reading

Trending

X