It really is though. The article is about housing affordability, not the dude. The poster in question just cannot see the article through him.
Unfortunately for you, like everything in life, how things are presented matter. This is a poor article regardless of the message it’s trying to portray.
Unfortunately for you, like everything in life, how things are presented matter. This is a poor article regardless of the message it’s trying to portray.
Unfortunately for me? I'm not the one that is fixated on the wrong thing in the article. I've already stated the article uses a poor subject example, but the article is easily understood as on housing affordability. Try to keep up.
Unfortunately for me? I'm not the one that is fixated on the wrong thing in the article. I've already stated the article uses a poor subject example, but the article is easily understood as on housing affordability. Try to keep up.
It’s not that it’s hard to understand or that people are obsessed or can’t see pay the person in the article, it’s just that they’re a more interesting thing to discuss.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
It really is though. The article is about housing affordability, not the dude. The poster in question just cannot see the article through him.
I think there's a little more to it. The article's message is about housing affordability eroding.
It is using Mr. DUI as a thematic proof point to highlight the messaging. I think we all agree this proof point is a hilariously bad one.
Bad proof points take away from the main message (even if the message is true).
To me, if anything, this article hurt the perception of housing affordability issues more than it was supposed to help because of a very poor choice of its main source.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sketchyt For This Useful Post:
I think the same people responsible for those retirement readiness profiles they used to do with Mr and Mrs $100k a year pensions and 3 rental properties not sure if they can afford to stop working quite yet.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
I think there's a little more to it. The article's message is about housing affordability eroding.
It is using Mr. DUI as a thematic proof point to highlight the messaging. I think we all agree this proof point is a hilariously bad one.
Bad proof points take away from the main message (even if the message is true).
To me, if anything, this article hurt the perception of housing affordability issues more than it was supposed to help because of a very poor choice of its main source.
Fair points, and thank you for the perspective., I understand where you're coming from. I do think certain posters are focusing too much on the subject example; the real content is on the charts and info later on in the article and the messaging of affordability (or lack thereof) as a whole. The CH did a terrible job with structuring it, agreed on that. Definitely appreciate your dialogue and respectful response.
The Following User Says Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
I think the CH may have intentionally done a poor job, I know it was handwaved as incompetence but really? Trying to tell the story of housing affordability with this guy? Rewind him in time to 0% interest rates and he still probably can't buy anything in his current situation he got himself into.
It buries the lede of the story so deep that it's hard to even rationalize.
I was fortunate to be in a position to buy when we did, and I know we couldn't afford half the house we ended up in under todays conditions. That's scary for society. But this clown is not the picture of that... it's people like my little bro, who are late 20s and into their careers a few years, saving money like they were told to and it's still way out of reach to consider owning a home. Tell that story. Someone did this story dirty by tying him to it.
I don't really understand your anger about focusing on the subject of the article, Muta. Do you read articles just for the charts? Kudos I suppose if so but you're in a vanishingly small minority.
Plus, if you ignore the person in the article, it’s really just “housing is more expensive now and fewer people can afford to get into it” which has been discussed to death for years at this point. Even in Calgary over the last few years, I would be surprised if anyone was surprised by the overall message of the article.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I don't really understand your anger about focusing on the subject of the article, Muta. Do you read articles just for the charts? Kudos I suppose if so but you're in a vanishingly small minority.
Thank you, I actually do normally comb articles for the message and any raw data it can provide. I'm not angry about the subject in the article at all (other people seem to be really hung up on it); I just think the dude is not the focus of the overall message; he is a poor example (and shame on CH for using him) that can (and should) be easily ignored in the larger context.
TB sometimes I can’t remember if it’s “Silver” or “Sliver” and I am tempted to refer to you as just “the user who posted”, so I can see where Muta is coming from.
TB sometimes I can’t remember if it’s “Silver” or “Sliver” and I am tempted to refer to you as just “the user who posted”, so I can see where Muta is coming from.
You just made me feel like Bobby Lee from this clip:
Like, can't you just memorize my name?
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
