[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Honestly, I don't care about the Chinese or their problems. I care about Canada first. They may come up with some interesting solutions that we may wish to emulate, but thats as far as I go with that. We should still be growing.

You make a lot of good points which I'm too tired to address. But in a global world, we'd better worry about pretty well every country, certainly ones that are as influential (and will be more) as China. But maybe if Saul Rubin is right, and we hit peak oil, we won't have to worry about China as much because transportation costs will be too high, so we'll have to learn to do things locally again. And accept a way lower material standard of living. All get wood stoves in Vancouver I guess.

You're right that China's economic problems due to an aging problem will affect us economically. but how they handle their population decline is not our responsibility. Our responsibilities are managing our own aging population and working within the economic climate of an aging world population to provide a good standard of living for our fellow Canadians, young and old. With these responsibilities, we should be anticipating the consequences of countries like China getting over, and developing the best way to mitigate it's negative effects on our economy.

And with the dwindling amount of natural resources in the world, more people might just have to switch to wood stoves to heat their homes.



Khar - I'd like to think that immigrants that bring children with them, or immigrants who are young and soon to produce children would be better for us than working professionals only who are in their 40s and 50s. Yes, children are dependants, but they will eventually contribute to society themselves as Canadian citizens.

We wouldn't encourage the current population to stop having children so that they can focus on solely providing for the elderly, because then who would look after them when they get old? It's a silly idea. So with that same thought in mind, whats wrong with encouraging immigrants to bring children, knowing their children will be the one's who are contributing when their parents become dependants?

Frankly, due to the lack of Canadian-born children, the more immigrant children, the better.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

You're right that China's economic problems due to an aging problem will affect us economically. but how they handle their population decline is not our responsibility. Our responsibilities are managing our own aging population and working within the economic climate of an aging world population to provide a good standard of living for our fellow Canadians, young and old. With these responsibilities, we should be anticipating the consequences of countries like China getting over, and developing the best way to mitigate it's negative effects on our economy.

And with the dwindling amount of natural resources in the world, more people might just have to switch to wood stoves to heat their homes.

It won't be very many switching to wood, because wood won't last long if we try to drive a modern economy with it. Think of how much wood it takes to make a barrel of oil. And a few rural rubes doing it won't make a hill of bean's worth of difference to the world picture.

Some people are very worried about the 30 million Chinese boys growing up who won't have mates because of the one child policy and preference for males. Those boys may cause a lot of trouble - ie war.

Of course we have to worry about Canada first - it's just that isolationism doesn't seem to be possible anymore - much as I would like it to be. Close the borders, live on what we can produce right here - it's a nice dream but probably not possible.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

It won't be very many switching to wood, because wood won't last long if we try to drive a modern economy with it. Think of how much wood it takes to make a barrel of oil. And a few rural rubes doing it won't make a hill of bean's worth of difference to the world picture.

Some people are very worried about the 30 million Chinese boys growing up who won't have mates because of the one child policy and preference for males. Those boys may cause a lot of trouble - ie war.

Of course we have to worry about Canada first - it's just that isolationism doesn't seem to be possible anymore - much as I would like it to be. Close the borders, live on what we can produce right here - it's a nice dream but probably not possible.

It's just an example, but if the rare materials needed for alternative energy becomes even rarer, and energy costs skyrocket even further, then wood is going to be a cheaper short term solution for many people. Again, it's just an example.

They may. War is one of the problems we will most likely face in the 21st century, and it is something we should be preparing for today, and then sustaining. We actually have quite the large defence industry, and it would only be bolstered further, thus providing tens if not hundreds of thousands more job, if we expand our military capabilities so that we could stand on our own against a Russian or Chinese attack.

Isolationism isn't possible, but we still have a right as a country to choose who we deal with to best deal with our social and economic needs.

[Khar]

$1:

Khar - I'd like to think that immigrants that bring children with them, or immigrants who are young and soon to produce children would be better for us than working professionals only who are in their 40s and 50s. Yes, children are dependants, but they will eventually contribute to society themselves as Canadian citizens.

We wouldn't encourage the current population to stop having children so that they can focus on solely providing for the elderly, because then who would look after them when they get old? It's a silly idea. So with that same thought in mind, whats wrong with encouraging immigrants to bring children, knowing their children will be the one's who are contributing when their parents become dependants?

Frankly, due to the lack of Canadian-born children, the more immigrant children, the better.

I agree! We do have a fairly young immigrant population coming, and the majority of the family members who come are people with young children or spouses, or with no one at all. The elderly, in the form of parents or grandparents, are a marginal group.

Still, I do not mind young immigrants coming here alone, either, and having kids with someone here. If they come alone and their family chooses to remain where they are, either they are an older independent professional or a younger person looking for work. Either way, young families with kids. I agree with you that that is important!

The main reason I responded was because of the misinterpretation of official statistics. On the topic of dependants in the form of children, we are of one mind on that one.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Khar Khar:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

About 60% of the population is abled bodied, so at 255,000 immigration is adding 153,000 workers a year. The statistic quoted is "working age" which includes the elderly in Statistics Canada jargon, not just the abled bodied - so it may be higher.

Immigration isn't really going to pay for the Retiring Baby Boomers. Immigrants come as families, that is with two children each on average. They are dependants, as are retired people. So while the number of people working to number of people retired ratio eases up a notch the actually dependency rate remains the same. The children are nearly as expansive as retirees and immigrants tend to pay for themselves rather than pay for old people. The number of people working in the Western countries is 48% to 51% of the population and immigration would not be improving that.

Stephan Harper's mass immigration is based on labour shortages just around the corner. Meanwhile Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is offering $50 billion in corporate tax cuts to stimulate job growth. That is he thinks the opposite of his not too much respected leader.

I've never heard of this statistic "growth per capita". If growth in the economy is 1.7% the growth per capita will be the same. I read about Jim Stafford from time to time and he indulges in such creative arithmetic to be printable.

Actually, 60% is entirely the wrong way to approach it. You assume that the demographics of our immigrants are the same as Canadians. The amount of family members brought in as a family class immigrant has been routinely less than half the economic immigrants, for example.

That means for each family member brought over, over two and a bit economic workers are brought over. This does not preclude them becoming a member of the economy down the road, either.

So we already have a base of almost 60% of total with just economic class citizens. Add on to this the fact that those roughly 50,000 children, spouses and partners can find work, those 20,000 parents and grandparents may be able to find work, and that our refugees may be able to find work (the last chunk of the equation).

This still means that over half of the people are working or capable of working, and that dependents likely count for less than the half you imply they account for with the "number of people working in the Western countries is 48% to 51% of the population and immigration would not be improving that" line. Indeed, integration of landed immigrants has been reported to have been going fairly well.

All you have to do is check out the immigration reports.

As I have explained to you before, Harper and Flaherty are likely working on different time tables. Our current problem is a shortage of jobs. Out future problem is a shortage in labour. The cut is supposed to work for the short term, the immigration technique for the long term.

I can't follow the logic or arithmetic of half your posts. You are saying that the immigrant labour force is the different or same participation of the native workforce.

Also you are saying Flaherty's $50 billion five years plan to cut corporate taxes is for the short term. Some short term. And what of the 1.25 million immigrants in the meantime, they going to displace Canadians?

I'm not going to read your immigration report - it'll say immigrants are doing well enough relatively to the indigenous. The problem is the indigenous are not doing that well. They'll turn a blind eye to that.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

And for Toronto being 15 million like New York, it may be as expensive as hell to live in New York, but the city is more affordable to live in than Toronto, because there are more wealthy jobs in the city to compensate for the expensive housing (personal GDP in the city is higher, so are housing prices, so it evens out). Yes, a lot of people move to and from New York, but a lot also stay there. That might have something to do with New Yorks position as a world city, as well as how crowded it is.

I don't why you would say that. The top professionals are better paid but the middle class and the working class will be paid normally. I read that one in five in NYC were on food stamps. I also read there is a migration in the USA going on from the bigger cities to the medium and smaller places. For the average guy the bigger cities offer less time, space and affordablility. A huge Toronto would make it an "exciting" city but not a good place to live for most. Let New York City continue to play it's role as world center and lets have the other cities livable.

[sandorski]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

And for Toronto being 15 million like New York, it may be as expensive as hell to live in New York, but the city is more affordable to live in than Toronto, because there are more wealthy jobs in the city to compensate for the expensive housing (personal GDP in the city is higher, so are housing prices, so it evens out). Yes, a lot of people move to and from New York, but a lot also stay there. That might have something to do with New Yorks position as a world city, as well as how crowded it is.

I don't why you would say that. The top professionals are better paid but the middle class and the working class will be paid normally. I read that one in five in NYC were on food stamps. I also read there is a migration in the USA going on from the bigger cities to the medium and smaller places. For the average guy the bigger cities offer less time, space and affordablility. A huge Toronto would make it an "exciting" city but not a good place to live for most. Let New York City continue to play it's role as world center and lets have the other cities livable.

Depends on how it's developed.

[Canadian_Mind]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

And for Toronto being 15 million like New York, it may be as expensive as hell to live in New York, but the city is more affordable to live in than Toronto, because there are more wealthy jobs in the city to compensate for the expensive housing (personal GDP in the city is higher, so are housing prices, so it evens out). Yes, a lot of people move to and from New York, but a lot also stay there. That might have something to do with New Yorks position as a world city, as well as how crowded it is.

I don't why you would say that. The top professionals are better paid but the middle class and the working class will be paid normally. I read that one in five in NYC were on food stamps. I also read there is a migration in the USA going on from the bigger cities to the medium and smaller places. For the average guy the bigger cities offer less time, space and affordablility. A huge Toronto would make it an "exciting" city but not a good place to live for most. Let New York City continue to play it's role as world center and lets have the other cities livable.

Generally middle class get paid better too. Big companies know what city they are in, and the salaries they pay their workers reflects that.

And 1/5 in NYC may be on food stamps, but you could say the same about Vancouver Island, which has 1/20th the population of NYC spread out over 20 times as much space. Generally the larger the population centre the more dense in is, which is what we should be striving to achieve if we want to maintain our current standards of living sustainably. Doesn't necessarily equate to a decrease in liveability. Look at Vancouver as an example. The place is completely unaffordable, but is often rated as one of the most livable cities in the world.

Yes, price of living will go up with a shortening supply of land for property, or in the case of apartments, a shortage of living units. It's a part of the supply & demand cycle, and yes, it will cause people to move to smaller/mid size cities where there are more opportunities. This is actually the best thing for the country if we want it to continue to grow and prosper.

But just because a city is large doesn't mean no one wants to be there and no one has opportunity there. It's like saying no one goes to a local restaurant because it's always crowded. If there are 15 million people in NYC, there are 15 million people that live there for a reason, either because they have no alternative, or because they choose to live there. Either way, thats 15 million people that live there that could be somewhere else. It's not like the place is shrinking due to undesirability.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Hi Canadian_Mind:

I have seen emigration statistics for NYC and it would be shrinking except for the influx of foreign immigrants. The cost of living in the place is listed in the New York Times Almanac and it fairly leaps at you. Some employers will pay a premium to be in NYC but probably there are a lot of average businesses. So I don't think the place is livable particularly. Kenneth Galbraith says places like New York City should never have been allowed to happen.

And you say it would be best for us, for progress, if the Canadian cities became larger. Actually growth isn't producing benefits. Wages are kind of stagnate. So equating growth with progress is some what out of date as well.

In any event in a city like Toronto you can encourage businesses to locate or relocate to the rest of the province. You can have surcharges for intense development. My Toronto City Councillor says his Ward is dense enough and development should be taxed. The price of a small bungalo in Toronto now averages something like $500,000 so you are talking about forcing young people to raise families in apartments.

It's not how exciting a city is it's rather what kind of a life style the average joe lives that is the issue. It's about social conditions. It's just about folks.

[Regina]

Said the UAW............

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

We're struggling to create enough jobs to meet our needs, but you want to keep importing people.

As far as the aging demographics, it would take a minimum of tripling our current immigration to truly impact that. That would lead to us having 150 million people in Canada by 2050 - do you really think we have the jobs and infrastructure to handle that. And what happens when those people all get old - we have to import how many to take care of those 150 million? When does it end? What you're proposing is a mugs game, unending population growth because we always need young people to take care of the every increase old ones. Better to find a solution now that doesn't depend on ever increasing population.

That 150 million population number sounds like bollox to me. The baby boom demographic in Canada is about 9.8 million people - why do we need to bring in 120 million to pay for them? Sure it would ease the tax burden, but bringing in 12 people for every boomer is excessive. If we brought in 10 million more (which is what the current immigration rates will allow: 250,000 per year for 40 years) that would be plenty. That would create 30 million+ to provide support for the boomers elderly years.

[Khar]

$1:

I can't follow the logic or arithmetic of half your posts. You are saying that the immigrant labour force is the different or same participation of the native workforce.

Also you are saying Flaherty's $50 billion five years plan to cut corporate taxes is for the short term. Some short term. And what of the 1.25 million immigrants in the meantime, they going to displace Canadians?

I'm not going to read your immigration report - it'll say immigrants are doing well enough relatively to the indigenous. The problem is the indigenous are not doing that well. They'll turn a blind eye to that.

I am saying that, because it's true. A greater proportion of immigrants are younger or have families which are younger than people who live here. A lower amount of older people are brought over who are beyond the age of being able to work in our country. Specific portions of a population are more likely to immigrate and emigrate. Hence, you are simply going to have differences in demographics between those who already live in a nation compared to those who are moving there -- this is fairly standard for all nations.

For example, the illegal immigration into the States is a beautiful example of how certain pressures of immigration move people of a certain age to come across the border. Typically it is the younger people who make the move to the States, not the older ones. Typically their skill set is different. In Canada, we have our own similarities, from those who come to Canada as refugees, to economic immigrants, to family status immigrants. Immigration puts a downwards pressure on demographics for age.

The economy of Canada will continue to grow to be able to accept new labour into our labour force. I doubt the displacement value is that large. If our nation was truly in dire straights, we would have seen a reduction in willing movement of people to our nation, and we have not. Rather, the increase in high technology jobs and similar fields have lead to increasing interest in a diverse and capable work force both domestically and internationally. Many immigrants have jobs lined up before they get here, and those jobs could not be filled domestically without a significant lag time for those with the qualifications to become available. It's more economic and hence, good for Canadians that these jobs go to people capable of performing those duties and expanding our nation, so that more jobs can be made.

The long term of any situation is where a firm is able to do anything, from withdraw to a market to build a factory, and so forth. The long term for some industries, like the oil industries, does fall into the double digits in years. The short term is a way of functioning within the limitations of those changes. By cutting off taxes, Flaherty hopes to cause the problems caused by limitations for expansion to wane, thus in the short term providing us with more jobs to fill them. Given we are functioning in a more generational situation, the short term could, in a way, be defined as our current generation. The long term deals with the coming problems with aging and how our society will change to deal with that.

The immigration report deals with a wide array of information collated by the government and dealing with both the positive and negative impacts of immigration. One is done each year, including previous year information, current statistics and forecasts for the coming year. If you wish to discuss government plans than you should take to heart the reality of the statistics and what is actually happening in the government than announcing than you will not read it for a reason which is not true.

Canadian_Mind has made a ton of excellent posts on this topic. Yes, people are shifting to smaller places, but that should be happening naturally. As opportunities develop elsewhere, people will chose to follow those opportunities. This is certainly not a bad thing, nor is it an indication that something is seriously wrong with those cities -- this is the natural movement of labour around a nation, and even between nations. If there is not this degree of movement, then there are incentives for people to live there. Like CM said, even though Vancouver is incredibly expensive to live it, it's still considered one of the most livable places in the world because of the other incentives there are to live in a city like Vancouver.

I also agree with him on diversification, and it's one of the things which the current Conservative government has impressed me with. There move to get FTAs between nations has been excellent, even if these nations are only a small portion of our trade, because it allows our trade portfolio to expand. I would love to see Canada get more involved with CARICOM with that deep water port and more involved with various South American countries, especially Colombia (where we are already heavily invested in some industries), Chile and Brazil.

Finally, I'd agree with Regina on his short comment as well. I remember there was another thread where the fact that he is employed by a union was brought up, and I had a similar response to Regina. I do question the validity of a report coming out of a group representing very specific, special interests like the UAW.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The short term is the current generation, the government reports detail the problems with immigration and people in other countries wouldn't come here if the economy didn't offer them something. Boy oh boy.

I love your idea that people in the desperate third world countries wouldn't come here if our economy was bad. Wouldn't come here if the economy was bad. That is they would not try to escape places like India which has 1.2 billion people, pays people a dollar a day, no national nanny programs and an ineffective birth control programs. They would not try to escape. I don't think you stop to listen to yourself before posting an opinion piece. Please connect your general knowledge before you pound out one of your posts.

[Bruce_the_vii]

sandorski sandorski:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

And for Toronto being 15 million like New York, it may be as expensive as hell to live in New York, but the city is more affordable to live in than Toronto, because there are more wealthy jobs in the city to compensate for the expensive housing (personal GDP in the city is higher, so are housing prices, so it evens out). Yes, a lot of people move to and from New York, but a lot also stay there. That might have something to do with New Yorks position as a world city, as well as how crowded it is.

I don't why you would say that. The top professionals are better paid but the middle class and the working class will be paid normally. I read that one in five in NYC were on food stamps. I also read there is a migration in the USA going on from the bigger cities to the medium and smaller places. For the average guy the bigger cities offer less time, space and affordablility. A huge Toronto would make it an "exciting" city but not a good place to live for most. Let New York City continue to play it's role as world center and lets have the other cities livable.

Depends on how it's developed.

Well for one housing prices would go up from the present average $500,000. Places like NYC, London and Paris are expensive. That's what would happen.

[Khar]

Bruce, in the The Seventh Billion thread I showed where the top 10 locations of our immigrants were coming from. That immigration report shows their level of expertise as well. They have to come through a process to come to Canada. Altogether, this has shown that immigration to Canada are often skilled people coming from developed nations, or those at the top end of the developing nations.

Besides, when we have had high unemployment in the past, immigration rates to Canada have gone down. This was in three papers I have shown you before. This is a quantifiable, scientifically identified evidence. Boy oh boy indeed, as it does turn out that it's true.

Most of all, we are talking about incentives in Canada. If people can get here as refugees, the Canadian charter allows them to move to areas of low unemployment. If they choose to remain in Toronto, then there are incentives for them to remain in Toronto. Those people in the States you showed as moving are doing exactly what I said they would do, move to areas where their prospects are better.

I don't understand how you can demonstrate what I am saying in one post and then say it is wrong when I enter the discussion. Nor can I understand how these people living on less than two dollars a day are supposed to not only make it out of India and into Canada through our immigration process, but also somehow manage to fund such a trip.

Over half of all Indian VISAs were rejected. Those who do come to Canada are those capable of getting to Canada. The problem right now is that the potential of these immigrants is actually going to waste due to education and accredation processes. In 2005, 59% of all Indian immigrants came as skilled professionals on top of those with education and those who came here for education. Less than 35% of them in 2005 came over as family class. These numbers have only increased as more Indian immigrants who come are skilled and less family members in comparison move to Canada. 90% of them are between the ages of 20-44. If we would suddenly be flooded by people living in poverty, how come the figures are like this now?

You have to keep in mind that those in poverty have low mobility and social constraints which stop them from getting here, Bruce. We don't even see much intercountry movement of those in poverty for long distances, usually just people from one low income nation to another. One of those papers I gave you actually showed that Canada lacked that avenue for people to get here, whereas the States has numerous latin and Mexican immigrants coming across the border due to low income problems.

Bruce, you did not even respond about the generation comment, instead attempting to focus on the semantics of "short term." It is fairly simple to see that they are focusing along different timelines. I said this in my first post on this site, and can quote myself if you wish. You also did not read any of the government reports, and recently admitted that you did not read many of the academic papers I have provided you. Belittling me for things which you did not even respond to says a lot more about your post than it does for mine, and only achieves hard feelings and polarization.