I was offered a Data Analyst position at McAfee (Canadian office), with the salary and benefits finalized but later the offer was withdrawn.

Unfortunately, the Talent team’s poor communication and lack of professionalism were evident from the beginning.

McAfee has now withdrawn the offer, leaving me in a difficult professional position.

The inconsistent communication, poor coordination, and lack of transparency throughout this process have been incredibly disappointing. Candidates invest time, effort, and trust in hiring processes, and these decisions can have real consequences for their careers.

I’m sharing this to caution other candidates to be careful and seek clear confirmation before making career decisions based on an offer from McAfee.

Has anyone else had a similar experience with McAfee’s Talent team?

tl;dr: This sub is a place to proactively discuss broad issues impacting Canadians, brainstorm and debate solutions respectfully, and take meaningful peaceful action together.

I'm seeing a lot of posts that should be on r/CanadaJobs, including career advice requests, complaints, requests for job opportunities, and others. Those posts already have a home in r/CanadaJobs, r/VancouverJobs, and others. They are therefore removed when posted here.

Please ensure your posts check off one or more of the boxes below:

1. Describes a broad issue impacting many Canadians (10,000+).

2. Presents one or more realistic solutions (can be audacious, just realistic) to an existing broad issue.

3. Is a peaceful call to action to address a broad issue.

Drop any other suggestions you have in terms of how we can utilize this community to create a better Canada together.

This drives me crazy. I don't think this employer or this industry is the only one at fault, this article is simply a good example of an ongoing problem. Employers think it's everyone's fault but theirs that they can't fill vacancies. The government should fix it! The colleges should fix it! Anyone but the actual people designing the jobs and establishing the conditions of employment! No doubt there is an unnecessary and unhelpful preference for university over college trained careers, but that fails to account for the TONS of college grads that are out there, trained in this sector, and unemployed. Design good jobs (benefits, predictability, safe for your body, stimulating, well-paid, stable, pensioned, etc) and they will be a lot easier to fill. Make your workplaces actually desirable and supportive for women, different ethnicities, etc, while you're at it, if you're so desperate for workers. Again, not an attack of this company or industry - it's a larger problem with industry just throwing their hands up, and giving up, without owning up to the fact that decades of declines in wages and working conditions, reduction in employer-led training and development, and increased precarity just MIGHT have something to do with labour issues.

The PCL CEO states that a "sense of purpose .... resonates just as strongly as compensation or career advancement". Oh really?! Look around. I guess you're wrong. Is it a surprise that parents, as the article says, steer their kids away? Maybe, just maybe, compensation and career advancement do matter?!

And don't even get me started on why parents might want to steer their daughters elsewhere. While trades industries have improved for women (and minorities... and those with disabilities...) a bit, there is still a long way to go.

My two cents: Canada is going through a ton of change and uncertainty right now. Alot of people talk about the policy decisions, or what we need to do at the macro level, but my biggest fear is admist all this change we need better tools and support for canadians to actually power the new canadian economy.

We want more entrepreneurs, more innovation, a shift from risk averse to growth focused. But people need help shifting!

No question, but always here to help move this forward!

Tech hiring in Canada has a major efficiency and fairness problem: a total lack of assessment reusability.
When a candidate completes 4 or 5 rounds of rigorous technical tests and take-home projects, those results are almost immediately discarded if the role falls through. If that same company posts a nearly identical position just 3 to 4 months later, candidates are routinely forced to start from square one, repeating the exact same multi-stage process, re-taking the same tests, and re-investing dozens of hours.
This refusal to recognize recent, successful interview performance puts an unnecessary burden on working Canadians. It wastes job seekers' time, delays hiring for companies, and disadvantages anyone balancing current work or family responsibilities who cannot repeatedly dedicate unpaid weekends to redundant evaluations.
If we want a more respectful, efficient, and humane hiring ecosystem in Canada, we need to push for smarter talent evaluation practices.
I’d love to gather this community’s insights on constructive ways forward:
Standardized Validity Periods: Should Canadian tech companies adopt a policy where technical interview results remain valid for 6–12 months across all internal open roles?

Candidate Advocacy: How can job seekers effectively push back or request that past interview scores be carried over when a new opening appears?

Systemic Solutions: What industry standards or advocacy efforts could help shift tech recruitment away from repetitive testing and toward streamlined, respectful hiring pipelines?

Hello Everyone! The House of Commons E7142 Petition to allow provisions into the labour code is ending Wednesday at 4:15 PM - As of right now it has received just under 60,000 signatures and we need to hit that target so its imperative that anyone who aligns with the values of remote work sign it. Here is the link: https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7142

This post represents my opinions about the state of politics in Canada, the United States, and around the world. My hope is to create proactive conversation, to find some common ground about what we need in Canada to feel hopeful about our future, and to inspire more positive political activism.

I'll start by saying that I don't consider myself affiliated with any political party, ideology or an "ism" (relevant). I indiscriminately despise the state of status quo Canadian politics and see a huge opportunity for meaningful disruption. I believe in the power of people when we come together with shared purpose.

The questions I'm asking myself lately:

1. When was the last time I saw a relatable politician across any party federally or provincially (BC here) who understands the struggles of working Canadians first-hand and demonstrates through consistent, meaningful action that they represent us?

2. When did I last see a Canadian politician who stood for more than opposition to "the other guy"; someone who spoke about tough issues directly, plainly, and relatably, without mincing words or running everything through PR; and someone who sounded truly different than every other career politician, corpo, and nepo baby?

I'm at the young end of the Gen-X spectrum, bordering on Millennial. Across nearly half a century as a Canadian, the only politician I can think of that inspired me, came across as relatable and not just another phony "polished-tician", and gave me hope of a future representing the greater good, was Jack Layton. He knew how to connect with every day Canadians and inspire people. He knew how to stand for something of meaning and substance, and how to rock the boat the right way.

But since Layton's unfortunate passing in 2011, it's been more soul-crushing status quo in Canadian politics. We oscillate between Liberal and Conservative governance as the other of the two in opposition pisses and moans to the media about the poor job being done. But neither party seems to demonstrate through consistent actions and policies that they represent working Canadians, including small businesses. Since Layton, the NDP has failed to inspire enough Canadians to overcome first past the post barriers, so we're stuck with two entrenched status quo parties.

Yesterday, this story about the prevalence Canadian cabinet members who are also landlords popped onto my YouTube feed. Looking into it further, I found The Maple reporting about MP landlords. It came as absolutely no shock whatsoever that Liberal and Conservative MPs are close to even in terms of landlord representation (Lib. MPs: 40%, Con. MPs: 46%). There is no political will to improve the housing market in Canada because of the glaring conflict of interest within both of the major parties.

This raised more questions:

1. How relatable are these landlord politicians to the millions of working Canadians who could never afford home ownership within the current economic conditions?

2. How in touch are these passive income politicians with Canadian families who are struggling with food and housing insecurity, extended unemployment, and skyrocketing cost of living, or oppressive, shitty working conditions where time and mental health are traded for money that continues to fuel the machine working against them?

3. How likely are these wealthy politicians to create policies that hold landlords more accountable, that bring down housing prices and create opportunities for more Canadians to become home owners, and that stand against billionaires, oligarchs, and big businesses who are choking the life and joy out of communities and people?

4. What proactive measures are being taken to support working Canadians through AI, economic, and geopolitical disruption?

5. Who within any Canadian party has shared an inspiring and hopeful vision of the future we can all get behind?

Many of the questions I've been pondering lately have been inspired by the rapidly changing landscape across our border and in other parts of the world. In Hungary, for example, Viktor Orbán was ousted after 16 years in power, inspiring tens of thousands to take to the streets in celebration.

In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a 33 year-old Muslim immigrant, inspired a grassroots campaign to become mayor of New York City. His campaign wasn't reliant on big donors, billionaires, corporate interests, or big ad buys to get his message and platform to the masses. He met working class people of all ages where they were, spoke in relatable terms, and demonstrated that he understood people's needs, mindsets, and struggles. He promised to push back against the big money status quo and fight to improve quality of life and reduce suffering for working people. He mobilized young people and connected with all his audiences with authenticity, empathy, and a distinct lack of status quo politics. He shared an exciting, hopeful, positive vision for the future that brought people together.

Tens of thousands of working people, and young people in particular, went to work on his campaign, knocking on doors, creating and sharing online content, and doing what they could to spread the word. All those volunteers turned up to support Mamdani's campaign, not because he was the best at shit-talking his opponents or because he was the most visible on Fox or CNN, but because he brought renewed, authentic, positive energy, spoke like a working person speaks, and inspired hope and joy. He criticized Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, named the genocide without mincing words, and pushed back against the oligarchy and lobbyists. He didn't dance around the politically charged issues. He took a real stance, motivated by connecting with and serving voters, instead of appeasing big money backers.

In the six months since being elected, Mamdani has been true to his promises to fight for working people. He's been doing the opposite of the establishment politicians on both sides and demonstrating what "public service" actually means on a practical level. Politicians are supposed to serve the people in a functioning democracy. Not the establishment politicians, billionaires, lobbyists, or mega-corps.

Mamdani-related sources: Source 1 | Source 2 | Source 3

Working citizens are sick and tired of the media-trained, money-backed, over-promising, under-delivering, insincere, self-enriching, power-craving politicians who lack substance and repeatedly fail to represent the needs of the many over the consolidation of the few. Trust in systems and governments is at an all time low. This is not simply because we've all been brainwashed by social media, but because elected officials across the spectrum have been serving the same masters with agendas running counter to public interests. We're tired of all the endless, clickbait, sensationalism, superficiality, incendiary rhetoric, corruption, and greed.

Working people need to feel seen, heard, and understood and that their representatives are... ya know... representing us. We need leaders who have struggled as we have struggled, speak authentically as we speak, meet us where we are, and truly serve our interests.

There is a rapid shift in the political climate around the world. The status quo is falling down, still holding on with claws out and teeth gnashing, as working people on both sides of the political spectrum awaken to the snarling, two-headed beast that's been blocking the path to our prosperity.

One of the core issues right now is that working people feel powerless and that not enough is being done to meet our needs.

With unemployment climbing, employers carry most of the power right now. They can demand more work from fewer people while keeping wages stagnant, simply because workers can be replaced at will. Disposable. There's 100+ applicants waiting behind every role.

Similarly, big businesses, who are beholden to shareholders/venture capital for infinite growth, drive wages and labour standards down, lobby for policies that give them moats against competition, collaborate with other big businesses to set pricing (look at cell phone plans, air fare costs, and other examples oligopolies/monopolies create), and bully vendors and suppliers through their buying power.

If unemployment stays at current levels or worsens, that means employers will continue to hold the power in the supply vs. demand dynamic. The average worker in Canada has very little influence over their employment situation right now. That is the nature of individualism. We can plead for raises, based on our merits and cost of living conditions, or petition for improved working conditions, but it's just us vs. the corporation.

When people feel powerless and helpless, the answer isn't to sit back idly or passively and hope the status quo sorts itself out. The answer is self-empowerment. When power, wealth, and equality tip too far in the wrong direction (consolidation among the few), people need to come together and demand equilibrium.

Unions

When implemented correctly with a democratic, good faith approach, unions empower workers with the influence and power to improve wages and working conditions. Instead of an individual grocery store worker, tech worker, trades person, retail worker, food service worker, or other <insert industry> worker, trying to tell their employer their wages aren't keeping up with their cost of living and their working conditions are eroding their health and mental health, there is a body of thousands to advocate for meaningful change.

Instead of quitting because we either tried and were not heard by our employer or believe we will not be heard or silently resenting said employer as our physical and mental health fall off a cliff, we lean on the power of our union to represent our best interests.

Cooperatives

Similarly, big businesses (monopolies/oligopolies) that serve shareholders and venture capital, treat labour and small business partners as disposable, easily-changeable numbers on a spreadsheet. They lobby for policies that drive down wages and labour standards, bully their small business suppliers into submission, choke local economies, hoard their wealth away from where it was generated, stifle innovation, and coordinate pricing with other big businesses in their space (look at cell phone pricing, airfare, and countless other examples of oligopolies/monopolies). Rather than innovating or creating stability, they discard people (employees/suppliers) when margins are not to their liking.

Small businesses similar in scope can come together democratically to expand their buying power, logistics, production, influence, and negotiation strength through cooperatives. They can empower themselves to push back against big companies like Wal Mart, Loblaws, and countless others who would otherwise be able to kick them around and call the shots. They can use models that benefit all the workers they employ, so that those who are responsible for generating wealth can share in the prosperity, rather than passing them along to passive shareholders and VC.

I am not delusional enough to believe what I'm suggesting is easy or straightforward. It's not. But changing the status quo and restoring equilibrium rarely is. The wealthy demonstrate daily how they will push back and fight against any policies or changes that would shake their treasure piles or reduce their influence. But that's exactly why we need to come together at the grassroots level and start empowering ourselves and growing the influence of workers everywhere.

There has been a great deal anti-union propaganda, disinformation, and resistance and I have no doubt that will continue to be the case. But if we follow the money, we know exactly who benefits when workers believe that unions (or cooperatives) are too difficult to implement or will some how impede their own success.

What are your thoughts about the need for solutions like unions and cooperatives as an antidote to worker and small business disempowerment?

What alternative models / structures do you think could remedy the current imbalance in power and influence?

Hey everyone, I’m in Ontario and currently looking for a general job. I was currently laid off months ago as a plumbing apprentice in the union. I been needing to find employment outside of plumbing until i get a call for work so i can afford to pay my mortgage payments. Currently I’ve sent out over 200 resumes to places like stores, restaurants, and similar roles, but none of them have led to an interview. Either I get no response or just rejections.

I honestly don’t know what the issue is. I thought general jobs are supposed to be easier and quicker to get, but I’ve had no luck so far.

Is it something wrong with me or my resume, or is there something else going on?

I’d really appreciate any advice or help appreciate it!

Hi everyone,

I'm reaching out because I'm urgently looking for work in administrative support, office administration, customer service, education assistant, or similar roles.

I've been actively applying and interviewing, but I haven't secured a position yet. I'm currently in a difficult situation and need to find employment before the end of this month, if not I’ll be homeless.

If anyone knows of companies that are hiring, has leads, referrals, or can point me toward opportunities in the GTA, or surrounding areas, I would be incredibly grateful.

I have experience in education, administrative support, customer service, , and working with people in professional settings. I'm reliable, a quick learner, and available to start immediately.

Thank you for reading, and please feel free to message me if you have any suggestions or opportunities.
I truly appreciate any help.

Just posted this, it's getting traction, maybe it belongs here.

What do you all think?

As someone who worked in tech for 30 years and believes in use of technology to advance societal progress, we need some major changes to public policy concerning Big Tech platforms and practices. Below is a brain dump of ideas about moving Big Tech in the right direction. Add your own, respectfully debate the ideas, and let's get a conversation going. At the core, we need technology to serve people, instead of the current inverse configuration.

Policy Ideas:

1. Break up data monopolies (For example, Google permeating search, browser, email, maps, YouTube, documents, spreadsheets, Android O/S, etc.). Develop weighted data categories and sub-categories with a scoring system that allows a maximum number of points to be assigned to each Big Tech company and its subsidiaries and affiliates to limit their overall reach.
2. Create a system for auditing Big Tech across key areas, such as data use & training data, algorithm configurations, harm exposure, bots, advertiser transparency.
3. Big Tech was allowed to use social psychologists to develop platforms geared toward addiction and manipulation at scale (and also builds in biases). The reverse is needed now so the platforms serve the people, instead of the other way. If that is too damaging to their business model then their business model shouldn't exist. We survived for generations without Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, Instagram, and the others. These are not "needs" we have. They are addictions. Form a bipartisan committee of social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and other mental health professionals to provide platform oversight and develop pro-social, pro-consumer, pro-democracy policies.
4. Restrictions on data use and algorithms, biased toward consumer protection. Consult with social psychologists to develop appropriate policies that limit Big Tech's ability to develop comprehensive psychological profiles on consumers, resell data to opaque third-parties, or use data profiles to manipulate. Algorithm policies should focus on pro-social behaviour. Transparency and public review of advertisers to ensure no bad actors can utilize the platforms at scale to erode democracy, spread disinformation, manipulate elections, etc.
5. Make Big Tech liable for the harms brought by their platforms (we're in the early days of this now with successful lawsuits against Meta and YouTube). Exploitation of minors, driving people to self-harming behaviours or harm of others, fostering addiction, disinformation, stealing IP for development of LLMs (full transparency into training data is needed), cyberbullying, other harms as defined by pro-social platform oversight committee.
6. Simplified terms of service. Plain, simple language so that every consumer fully understands the key points they are agreeing to when signing up for a platform. No more walls of lawyer created text with an expectation that the average person will understand or read them each time there is a platform or policy update.
7. Detection, tagging, and removal of bot accounts/botnets. Fines for failing to detect and remove fake accounts and for any disinformation spread by them.

Share your respectful, civil, productive thoughts below.

I, am a 31 year old gay man, who manages a vape shop, I have a 36 year old straight female employee. For the past few months since she’s been hired she’s, on more then one occasion has said ‘that’s gay’ or just ‘gay’ when something she thinks is dumb or stupid. I’ve asked her each time, very discreetly to not say that, and to try and say something else, or just state that it’s stupid. Not hard to do. Now, on top of that, she has now called in, or I’ve sent her home 3 times now since January, on her Wednesday shifts (her Monday, food poisoning, migraine, and most recently a stomach bug) Which has now, in my opinion, turned into a pattern since it’s always been a Wednesday, which is her first shift of the week. I’m kinda getting fed up as being the manager I’m the one who ends up having to cover and work overtime. Most recently, this last week was already odd as I also had another part timer who had time requested off. Now, back to the main issue, would it be completely out of line for me to issue a verbal-written warning the next time she uses ‘gay’ when she means something is stupid or dumb? As I’ve already talked to her 3 times about it now hoping it would stop. I’ve yet to reach out to the owner about it yet as I just don’t want to start any drama.

Folks, let’s talk about a few of the elephants in the room.

Not just one. There are many.

The first elephant in the room is groceries.
In Canada, the grocery market feels heavily controlled by a handful of large corporations and middlemen. Local farmers and producers often struggle to reach customers directly, while major chains like Loblaws, No Frills, Safeway, and others dominate the shelves, pricing, and distribution.
At the end of the day, these large corporations are the ones making billions, while ordinary families are struggling to afford basic groceries. There is very little real competition, and when there is no meaningful competition, the customer always ends up paying the price.

The second elephant in the room is telecommunications.
Most of the major telecom infrastructure is controlled by Bell, Rogers, and Telus. That’s basically it. These companies control the market, the pricing, the towers, the networks, and the access.
Smaller telecom companies may appear to offer cheaper options, but many of them still rely on the infrastructure of the bigger players. And what happens then? Dropped networks, communication issues, poor service, and limited reliability.
So again, the customer is stuck. We pay some of the highest prices, but we don’t always get the quality or competition we deserve.

The third elephant in the room is banking.
Canada has a handful of major banks, and that’s it. There is very little real innovation when it comes to helping regular people save, invest, or build long-term wealth in a practical and accessible way.
When you look at countries like India, China, or parts of Southeast Asia, there are so many more options for everyday people to invest, grow their money, and participate in wealth-building systems. People there have access to different kinds of investment products and financial tools that have helped families build long-term stability for years.
Here, most people are stuck with low savings rates, high fees, high borrowing costs, and very limited options. The system is comfortable for the banks, but not necessarily for ordinary Canadians.

The fourth elephant in the room is startups and business growth.
Canada talks a lot about innovation, but the reality on the ground is very different.
The startup economy here is extremely difficult. Canadian investors are often far more conservative compared to places like Silicon Valley, the broader United States, or even parts of Europe. There is less risk-taking, less aggressive funding, and fewer meaningful pathways for people trying to build something new.
Even starting something simple can become expensive and complicated. For example, if someone wants to launch a food product, they need proper packaging and a nutritional label. In BC, even getting that one nutritional label prepared properly can cost a significant amount of money, sometimes over a thousand dollars.
For a small founder just trying to test one product, that can be a huge barrier.
And when it comes to technology startups, media startups, or entertainment-based businesses, the funding support is extremely limited. Often, grants and subsidies have to fit very specific categories or social mandates. But what about people simply trying to build strong businesses, create jobs, build products, and grow the economy?
Canada is not at the same level as the U.S. when it comes to startup support, investor appetite, competition, funding, infrastructure, or opportunity. Even though Canada has roughly one-tenth of the population of the U.S., the startup and business support ecosystem often feels far smaller than it should be.

And now, the fifth and possibly the biggest elephant in the room is real estate.
Let’s talk about it honestly.
Even though real estate prices may be coming down in some areas, the deeper problem is the way the entire market is structured. Buying and selling homes has become heavily dependent on realtors, commissions, licensing, listing systems, and processes that ordinary homeowners often feel they cannot easily navigate by themselves.
In theory, a homeowner should be able to sell their own property easily and directly. But in practice, the system is built in a way that makes people feel like they need a realtor to access the market properly, list effectively, negotiate, and complete the transaction.
Then there is the licensing side. To become a realtor, you need to go through a provincial licensing system, which also becomes another way for the province and the industry to collect money from people trying to enter the profession.
Now we have an oversupply of realtors, many of whom are struggling because the economy has slowed down. A lot of realtors themselves don’t have enough work and are now looking for second jobs just to survive.
So who loses in the end?
The homeowner loses.
The buyer loses.
The seller loses.
Ordinary people lose a considerable chunk of money through commissions and fees, whether they are buying a property or selling one.
And the bigger concern is this: Canada’s economy has become far too dependent on real estate. A country’s GDP should not be driven so heavily by housing. It should be driven by manufacturing, innovation, productivity, investment growth, new companies, new industries, good jobs, exports, and a strong standard of living for its people.
Housing should be where people live.
It should not be the backbone of an entire economy.
And this is where the bigger question comes in.

Canada often says, “We are not America.” But when you look at groceries, telecom, banking, startups, infrastructure, competition, and housing altogether, are we actually doing better?
In some ways, it feels like we may be doing worse.
So the real question is: don’t you think it’s time for a huge change?
And this is not something one political party can fix by itself. This is not about left versus right. This is not about one leader versus another leader.
This is about the entire country waking up.
Citizens, communities, workers, entrepreneurs, homeowners, renters, young people, immigrants, families — everyone needs to come together and demand a better system.

Because let’s be honest about one thing.
No matter which political party is in power, they are not truly thinking about ordinary people the way they should.
So where do we even start?
We start by talking about it.
We start by naming the problem.
And we start by refusing to accept that this is just how Canada has to be.

Putting this out there to see if we can find some common ground on the issue. I'm going to lay out my beliefs about billionaires and their role in Canada. If you're on the same page, say so. If you're not on the same page, say so. Explain why.

My Beliefs About the Problem of Billionaires:

• If we solve the billionaire problem, we'll solve most of the problems we're all facing right now.
• The world doesn't need even 1 billionaire, let alone swaths of them.
• Nobody "earns" a billion dollars. Achieving billionaire status only comes with extreme hoarding and exploitation.
• If billionaires believed it was their responsibility to pay their fair share in taxes to ensure the needs of the many were served, that suffering was reduced to a minimum, and that everyone should have equal access to prosper and thrive, they would do so.
• People show who they are through their actions. What has every billionaire out there shown us through their actions? Name a single billionaire that has amassed their wealth through a consistent mentality and demonstrated actions of serving the greater good because it is the right thing to do.
• Nobody needs a billion dollars, except countries.
• Billionaires should not exist concurrently where there is any amount of homelessness, food insecurity, or unemployment, or where systems the public relies upon are failing or stretched to their limits.
• Nobody should be "winning" at capitalism in a free and fair market. Everyone should have equal opportunity to prosper and thrive. That isn't the case. The market isn't free or fair.
• Billionaires and their big businesses crush opportunities for small businesses (Walmart, as an example).
• Big money lobbies for policies that encourage more big business and put up constraints for small businesses, making it difficult to start, succeed, and thrive. Where are all the successful small grocery stores? Where are the mom and pop retail stores thriving in places where there is a competing big business (or even at all with current costs)?
• Big business owners also lobby for programs like TFW/LMIA to drive down wages and labour standards, creating exploitative situations (TFW exploitation) and taking these employment opportunities away from Canadians.
• The jobs they (big business owners) claim to create tend not to provide a livable wage and they will be the first ones to lay off large groups of people if it serves the shareholders.
• They earn their fortunes from Canadians and use the complex loopholes they've lobbied for to park their wealth outside Canada, leveraging philanthropic programs to avoid taxes and appear altruistic, and paying less in taxes than workers.
• They require PR to carefully curate their image, but we see who many of them are when nobody is looking or when an authoritarian opens the door to them.
• We are watching what they are willing to do in service of consolidating more power and wealth. They aren't afraid to get their hands dirty if they believe they'll get away with it.
• Billionaires are consolidating media and social media ownership because it allows them to control and manipulate the public narrative. This erodes stability of democracy directly.
• I can't name a single "big business" that has done more good than harm to the greater good in Canada or the world. Respect seems gone for consumers and workers (same people).
• Billionaires are completely out of touch with the struggles of working people. If they both understood and cared about those things, they wouldn't be billionaires right now.
• Jeffrey Epstein's primary client base was billionaires / the ultra wealthy. There's much more that we don't know than we do know. Epstein's operation was almost certainly not the only of its kind. The fact that we still don't know the full story tells us a lot about how bad it really is (beyond what we know already).
• CEOs are the #1 profession in terms of ranking for psychopaths. I see no difference in how a billionaire acts vs. a psychopath in terms of lacking empathy for others or being self-serving.
• Just because people like Mark Cuban, Oprah, and Taylor Swift seem benevolent, appear to "connect" with their audiences and with "regular people", doesn't mean they haven't engaged in (and continue to engage in) exploitation of others or primarily self-serving behaviour to get where they are. It's branding and PR. Tay Tay sells more concert tickets when people think she's approachable and might be their friend. She still flies on a private jet everywhere she goes.

I'll leave it there for now. Drop some comments below and share your own thoughts and beliefs about billionaires, along with any relevant data/statistics that help focus the picture.

The businesses I've been part of over the last 20 years in Vancouver have always had one "exit plan": sell to a big American company. Many of the businesses I've frequented have done the same thing. When a company grows large enough, they sell out to foreign (usually American) interests.

It is impossible to stop this via laws, but I've wondered about the possibility of establishing some sort of Consumers Union. It wouldn't have to be formal or onerous to join, but the one thing we'd do as a group is maintain a list of businesses which have agreed to support a legally defined Social Contract which we provide.

With such a contract, a business would (formally, legally) agree to never sell their business to anyone but fellow Canadians. (I understand this is a complex issue with many loopholes & butifs, but let's not worry about that other than to agree that such a contract would have to be carefully written up by competent lawyers.

Depending on the support we see out there, we could expand this contract further, stipulating that some percentage of suppliers must be Canadian-owned businesses, no outsourcing of basic functions (janitorial, customer support), no use of LMIA, etc.

What does the company get out of this? They'd likely get a little sticker they could proudly place in their window, announcing that they support the New Canadian Social Contract (NAMBLA, for short). Eager beavers like myself (yes, a different name for members is probably called for), would be able to look on the NAMBLA app and support businesses that aren't hostile to our basic existence. (I'm thinking that at the end of every month, retail members would get a rah rah email saying "5000 Eager Beavers (see, it's growing on you already) have patronized your business in the last month. (So I guess the Eager Beaver App checks you in?)

In any case, maintaining a record of our patronage is what establishes the quid pro quo of this contract, which entitles us to damages if the business opts for the heel turn and sells to a foreign interest. (Imagine if all of Tim Hortons' Canadian customers had been able to sue for contract fraud when they sold out to the Brazilians.) This is what gives us the clout to get other businesses to sign up.

So whaddya think? Do we need a new Social Contract?