so, i got my cleaning done - the bathroom and kitchen are both totally done, cleaned and completed for long term tenancy. it's actually a very nice bathroom, and i'm happy about that. next up will be the second bedroom, which i'm using as a dining/living room & library. it's big enough for a couch and a table with a laptop/tv on it - and some shelves in the corner. but, i'm going to get through 08/16 first. hopefully, i can get a good chuck down by the end of the weekend.

i also got my first electricity bill and was a little thrown off by it.

i was expecting something a little higher due to the fact that i've done something like 40 loads of laundry this month. but, a closer look at the information pulled out a lot of spikes that i can't currently account for and i'm going to have to figure out why. my immediate suspicion is that i may have the hot water tank attached to my circuit, meaning i'd be paying for heating...

frankly, that's not the end of the world. i don't mind paying my own hot water in theory, it's just that the lease says the landlord is supposed to pay for it. so, if i can convince myself that this is actually what's happening, i guess we need to figure out if it's intentional or not, first. but, i may actually prefer to see a small rent reduction - $20 or $30 - and send the cost to the oesp, instead. due to the way the system works, i'd rather take the costs on my myself, because i can offload them. i just wish he was upfront about it.

i need to be clear: i haven't convinced myself of this, yet. i'm going to need to check the hourly usage and piece it together. but, it is the initial hypothesis.

the background rate also seemed unusually high. in my last apartment, i was using 3-5 kwh base - meaning things like lights and appliances, and the laptop that i have on pretty much all of the time. it's more like 8 here. that's almost twice as much, and there isn't a good reason for it.

the only thing that i can finger as the cause - and the data seems to support it - is the light bulb in the bathroom. i guessed that this thing might be a little more powerful than i'd like, but i seem to have drastically underestimated it. it turns out that it's actually a "heat lamp" rather than a bulb. 175 W. i didn't really look at it or analyze it, but now that i am doing so, having this one bulb on for a few hours a day may have literally doubled my base electrical costs.

i took it out this evening and replaced it with a regular bulb. we'll see what kind of difference that makes over time.

so, i'll be in bed for the next few days, focusing on the rebuild - and carefully keeping track of my electricity usage.

if they want to save money on social assistance, what should they actually do? and, i support some of these things for other reasons. remember: as a recipient, it is also in my interests to reduce the number of people on assistance, as i get better access to the services, that way.

1) better access to abortion and contraception services, including working to remove stigmas around abortion and contraception that are erected by conservative religious groups. whether we're talking about welfare or disability, it is the perpetuation of the cycle of poverty and addiction that is the biggest factor creating dependence. reducing birth rates amongst people that live on social assistance should be the dominant priority, as the science is clear that most of the people born into the system will in fact remain within it.

2) renegotiate resettlement terms with the federal government to take in more immigrants and fewer refugees. single able-bodied male refugees should be given higher priority for resettlement than families or dependent women and children. listen: if you want to save costs, this is something that will actually work. the liberal theory here is wrong - most of these kids will end up dependent.

3) build more subsidized housing. in the long run, this will reduce costs related to transient housing, including running shelters and food banks, and transfer costs from providing services for vagrants to giving them money to spend, which cycles money back into the economy, producing multiplier effects.

4) provide greater access to secular addictions counselling. the 12-step program is a cult that fosters dependency on itself. we have a lot of science on the topic at our disposal; we should stop relying on these religious groups and start using it.

5) reduce barriers to accessing education, including the costs to education.

if they're serious about this on a fiscal level - and not just appealing to the base calivinistic instincts that dominate in the lowest common denominator of society - then simply cutting rates would be devastatingly stupid, as they're going to spend twice as much on policing and court costs (as well as incarceration costs) from the increase in crime that follows. and, we don't have a slave labour prison system, so the incentive towards mass incarceration doesn't exist, either - except at the complex level. we do have some privately owned prisons. i guess putting us all in jail would require building more prisons...

the thing is that we already know that this government is, in fact, devastatingly stupid - and will do many devastatingly stupid things until we can get rid of them.

i think what you should expect is some kind of workfare. that might not save any money in the end, but it won't cost them anything, and it's the most direct way to play to their base of religious fundamentalists.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-social-assistance-100-day-review-1.4884242