Le constat de Rentseeker.ca est sans appel: le Québec est l’une des provinces les mieux lotties au Canada (les habitations y coûtent en moyenne 268000$). Pour un ménage, le salaire moyen annuel nécessaire pour acheter à Montréal est ainsi de 68378$. À Québec, on descend à 56645$ quand, à Sherbrooke, on a juste besoin de 48839$. Mais le record au pays est détenu par Trois-Rivières: il suffirait de 39379$ pour acheter dans cette ville.
Des chiffres comparable à ceux qu’on peut trouver dans le Manitoba, mais supérieurs aux champions toutes catégories du pays: le Nouveau-Brunswick et la Nouvelle-Écosse. Pour acheter à Fredericton, vous n’auriez ainsi besoin que d’un salaire de 36836$ (le prix moyen d’une habitation y est de 156000$). À Halifax, le prix moyen étant de 280035$, vous n’auriez besoin que de 56483$ annuel.
Le fossé avec les provinces de l’Ouest est évidemment abyssal. Alors que le prix moyen d’une habitation en Ontario est de 446000$, il vous faut 126530$ pour acheter à Toronto et même 140804$ à Vaughan. Un peu plus à l’ouest, dans l’Alberta, il vous faudrait un salaire de 87761$ pour acheter à Calgary
Mais évidemment, le plafond est atteint en Colombie Britannique où le prix moyen d’une habitation culmine à 562000$. Il vous faudrait ainsi gagner 152145$ pour acquérir un bien à Vancouver où le prix moyen d’une habitation est de 810600$. Mieux: vous voulez investir à Vancouver Ouest? Alors il vous faudra 320932$ de salaire annuel pour acquérir une habitation au prix moyen de… 1757700$!
Comparez le prix des habitations au travers du Canada et le salaire qu’il vous faudrait pour les acheter.
Source: Quel salaire faut-il pour acheter une habitation au Canada? | LesAffaires.com
Young people will tolerate many things, but not the intolerance of others.
Go to the link below for more.
Source: Daily chart: Young people and free speech | The Economist
The Economist’s glass-ceiling index measures gender equality in the labour market.
In 2005, 60% of women were in the labour force; ten years later, this ratio had edged up only slightly to 63% (it was 80% for men in both years). With relatively few women climbing the ranks, and strong old-boys’ networks helping men reach the top, female representation in well-paid and high-status jobs is closer to a third than half. And the gender wage gap—male minus female wages, divided by male wages—is still around 15%, meaning women as a group earn 85% of what men do.
These broad averages conceal wide variation between countries. The Nordic countries clearly lead the world on gender equality at work. The top four positions this year belong to Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland, just as they did in 2016 (though Sweden and Norway did switch places). Women in these countries are more likely than men to have a university degree and be in the labour force. They make up 30-44% of company boards, compared with an average of 20% across the OECD. And voluntary political-party gender quotas mean that women are well-represented in parliaments. In October, women won a record 48% of the seats in Iceland’s lower house. At around two-fifths, Scandinavian women’s share of parliamentary seats ranks in the top 10% globally.
At the other end of the index are Japan, Turkey and South Korea. Women make up only around 15% of parliaments in these countries, and are underrepresented in management positions and on company boards. In South Korea, just 2% of corporate directors are female. Similarly, fewer women than men have completed tertiary education and are part of the labour force. Only 35% of Turkish women are working or looking for work, and a mere 16% have graduated from university.
Source: Daily chart: The best and worst places to be a working woman | The Economist
Global warming is shrinking a river vital to 40,000,000 people.
In a study published in the journal Water Resources Research, they concluded that the rest of the decline is due to a warming atmosphere induced by climate change. The change is drawing more moisture out of the Colorado River Basin’s waterways, snowbanks, plants and soil by evaporation and other means.
Their projections could signal big problems for cities and farmers across the 246,000-square-mile basin. The area spans parts of seven states and Mexico. The river supplies water to about 40 million people and 6,300 square miles of farmland.
“Fifteen years into the 21st century, the emerging reality is that climate change is already depleting the Colorado River water supplies at the upper end of the range suggested by previously published projections,” the researchers wrote. “Record-setting temperatures are an important and underappreciated component of the flow reductions now being observed.”
The Colorado River and its two major reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are already overtaxed. Water storage at Mead was at 42 percent of capacity Feb. 22. Powell was at 46 percent.
Water managers have said that Mead could drop low enough to trigger cuts next year in water deliveries to Arizona and Nevada. They would be the first states affected by shortages under the multistate agreements and rules governing the system.
But heavy snow in the West this winter may keep the cuts at bay. Snowpack in the Wyoming and Colorado mountains that provide much of the Colorado River’s water ranged from 120 to 216 percent of normal as of Feb. 23.
Source: Global warming is shrinking river vital to 40,000,000 people | Smithsonian TweenTribune