About The Author
Lila Huang is the Media - Illustrations Manager at The Reckoner. Her hobbies and talents include reading unhealthy amounts of fanfiction and collecting pictures of frogs. One day, hopefully in the near future, she would like to conduct a mass defenestration.
Self-Destruction or Innovation in Technology?
18 July 2018
Op-Ed: The Wage Gap—A Different Approach
24 April 2017
Op-Ed: The Republican Congress and You
7 October 2014
Playoffs Preview Game 6
13 June 2019
It appears that Tory and Chow only address youth employment, while Ford is more partial towards general economic growth.
Transport is indeed highly biased towards Chow. Wouldn’t the safest transit plan be underground and highly automated? When’s the last time someone died on a subway?
Tory’s fiscal policies are not described, while Chow’s plan to raise taxes is presented positively.
I can see Chow’s plan to force companies to hire youth turn out very badly. Companies do not derive much benefit from training youth, who most often only work part-time. This will make them pass on the increased costs to the city. As such, the city is essentially subsidizing youth’s lack of employable skills, something that should not be encouraged in a recovering economy.
Olivia Chow wants RIGHT-ANGLED CURBS.
“Make curbs safer. Today’s curbs are curved, so cars can turn faster. By making them squared, or right-angled, the car must turn more slowly, and the driver has few more seconds to see if anyone is walking.”
There seems to be a slight bias towards Olivia Chow, especially in the “Safer Transport” section.
Olivia Chow and John Tory are definitely more centrist than the info-graphic makes it seem.