[Bruce_the_vii]

Way past the 10 line limit for a post.

It's not obvious that Flaherty and Harper are focusing on different time lines. A year ago there was a newspaper report that Harper thought labour shortages were just around the corner. The logic is apparent. The economy was growing, the unemployment level was only 8.X% and because of regional variance wage inflation can rear it's head at maybe 6% unemployment. So a year ago it was prudent he thought to worry about labour shortages and keep the immigration quota at a quarter a million. This all changes every quarter so we'll have to see.

I find your posts wild, not detailed and rigorous. There's a difference, eh. I read a government report, Eat Me, is not rigor. More Input and less Output.

[Khar]

Bruce, I attempt to provide the maximum amount of information in each post (and try to support my comments as much as possible), because I want you to see why and how I disagree with you, and why your simple comment about some information (like the comment about Indian immigration) is simply wrong. Post length is a rather arbitrary measure to use -- when sandorski says a post is a fail, it's one word, that I usually have to defend with a few sentences to point out why it isn't, as an example, and it's the same for your posts. A shorter post is not necesarily better (and does not imply more or less "input/output"), and when dealing with a complex topic where you introduce a series of sub-topics, you should expect posts to be longer in response.

Harper has been talking about future labour shortages for years, and if his current program is to support the immigration rates we've had while he's supported this concept than an article which was posted more recently of him not changing it does not change it's support. Also, I feel you have gotten too caught up with semantics again, as people have been concerned about the potential "around the corner" problems about the baby boomers for decades.

This post including this sentence is only 7 sentences in length, and you have had three posts well over your 10 line limit (close to doubling it more than once). Eat Me is not a government report, and even if it was it does not represent all those other reports, just like Toronto is not a representative of Canada.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I don't read your long posts. Above you've tried to say I'm wrong about immigration from India. India has 1.2 billion people - mostly dirt poor. Canada has 34 million, mostly affluent. If you don't see the difference you got problems, son.

[Khar]

You don't read government reports, academic papers, or long posts. Exactly what do you read to come to your conclusions, Bruce? Requesting responses in other threads and then not reading them, introducing complex concepts and expecting short responses and introducing arbitrary sentence rules which you routinely break does not help communication, it inhibits it.

I showed you the demographics of how many skilled workers come in from Canada. I showed you the reduction in immigration as a result in unemployment. I told you that there are social and mobility problems for people in poverty to even be able to move to a nation like Canada. Nations like the States and South European nations are nations which have direct access for people from poverty ridden nations, Canada does not.

Just because something looks obvious doesn't mean it is obvious. If you had read the above, and looked at the figures, you'd have seen that I don't have problems. I'm trying to follow what facts we have.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I can't follow your logic. It's true that the USA and the EU get poor immigrants and Canada gets people with degrees and that. However, what's the point. These Canadian immigrants are better off in Canada than in badly backward countries like China and India. For one, these professional immigrants come for their children. This has always been the immigrant story. For two even if you drive cab in Canada you are taken care of by the nanny programs in old age. For three the poor immigrants are welcome because they become the proletariat and the indigenous move up. I have looked at the statistics for 19 years and found major holes in them. I post them here. I consider them worth posting. You've ignored these major holes. Good luck to you.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Maximum information. Khar said "maximum information". I don't deal in "maximum information". I deal in essentials. You will never be able to make heads or tails of maximum information if you ignor the key points. This is what I learned, this is how I operate. Forget maximum information, it's a blizzard.

[Khar]

That's entirely the point. You were off base with your remarks about Indian immigration, and by extension, the timeline of these plans. You said that they were going to come here, because of poverty in their land, yet, they are not. Your post was also not supported by the actual figures for immigration. Remember the context of what you posted.

Playing with semantics, Bruce, goes no where but causing hard feelings and disruptions to communication. If you cut everything down to the "essentials," you miss out on a lot of important information, especially when you are discussing something effected by as many things as labour. I provide details because they are needed to support what I am saying -- I do not say everything, as you inferred, but I do try to say as much as possible.

One of the factors discussed in that government report, and those like it, is integration of immigrants into our labour force. Many come here with skills which are not putting them at the bottom of the income ladder, as has been mentioned by many here. Assuming that immigrants are going to end up at the bottom simply does not work, as many enter our workforce in higher paying jobs. There are most definitely problems, and that's why I support, as I mentioned previously, increases in education and accredation initiatives to get these people to the proper level in Canada.

Bruce, your idea of a valid method is to base it all off of one city, Toronto, and blame problems on one variable, immigration. That simply does not work, especially given the discussion we just had on mathematical procedures in your "Economists????" thread. If you have found these supposed holes, than link me (or at least tell me about any of them) to where you mention them so I can see these massive holes for myself rather than just declaring them to be there and expecting me to believe it. I give details because I expect you not to believe me, and hence I have to support what I feel is valid.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Holes? For one you don't need skilled and professional immigration rather you need to train the next generation. This idea is missing from the Canadian literature. It's socially backwards.

For another hole the Immigration Department immigrated 558,000 immigrants into Toronto in the 1990's before the economy recovered. That's 558,000 immigrants before one net new job was created. The Immigration Department has no idea what it is doing. None, zero, zilch. The government reports all say everything is not too bad. My data - http://build.tripod.lycos.com/trellix/s ... _page.html

I talk about Toronto as a worst case. The situation is general only it's well illustrated by Toronto. I'm not just talking about Toronto.

More essentials and less lectures there Khar.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Khar Khar:

You were off base with your remarks about Indian immigration,

India has 1.2 billion people mostly poor and an average family of 3 children and Canada has 34 million and a below replacement birth rate. Just who is going to survive the 21st Century? What the fuck are you talking about, your information base? People won't come here from India if there is unemployment? They wouldn't actually notice a 10% unemployment rate.

Khar has read some government bureaucrat reports and then managed to loose sight of the facts of life. India has lost it's way. 1.2 billion people is daunting. Good luck to you, son.

[Bruce_the_vii]

You listening son? A reliable pair of ears is as useful to have around as a reliable pair of hands.

Immigration from the 3rd world is economic rationalism? Khar, find a nice girl, listen to the folks at your work place and stop posting you read a bureaucrats report so I should lick your ass. The world has problems.

[Khar]

That figure is for Toronto CMA, as the labour force increased by less than half of that. In all fairness, you do not know if all the people who moved to Toronto were immigrants either -- I know that around that time, for example, there was a large shift of people working in London, Ontario to working in Toronto.

Unemployment's height was 11.32% in 1993 and then decreased steadily for the rest of the nineties, until it was 6.14%. If not new jobs were created, where did these people go? How do you know they were immigrants? Source is StatsCan via here. Your data, in comparison, is blocked.

Also, I question your use of statistics for "no new net job creation." While quoting the stats change for the over-15 population of the CMA, or GTA, you then used the job figures from the Central Toronto area only -- representing less than half of the overall location of the population of the GTA for the periods described. Source.

What about those who ended up working in satellite cities, like Hamilton? Or those who worked in the GTA, rather than Central Toronto? Did those areas experience zero net job growth? I believe people living in Toronto either worked in places inside the Greater Toronto Area, rather than Central Toronto, or in other cities like Hamilton.

There are low income problems in central Toronto, however, but as we discussed in the The Seventh Billion thread, there was no evidence it was the fault of immigrants rather than other factors. After all, growth in the GTA well outstripped growth in the CTA, by ten times -- the central area only grew by about 50,000 people in the nineties. The GTA is also not just a bunch of houses, but businesses, services, old satellite communities and many other forms of viable employment opportunities for a population.

Bruce, in every case we have discussed this, you have only ever used Toronto figures or discussed Toronto. You haven't been using it as a worst case example, you have been using it as the only-case example. I have posted well over 100 times in threads you've been involved with at this point, likely, so you've had ample changes to use an example other than Toronto. Even the statistics you have posted have been Toronto only! The only time you've diverged is when we were discussing hidden unemployment, and even then only in the most general sense.

It is not the statistics at fault here. I really do feel that you have simply interpreted them and applied them incorrectly.

We don't need those people to immigrate to Canada, but it's highly recommended! They can fill jobs now which will lead to job creation down the road. Hiring an engineering or geology tech in Calgary for an oil company could lead to the capabilities of hiring a dozen workers down the road, easily!

Canadians are not being displaced. They are being added on to. Our children are growing with better education and going farther with their education in larger numbers than ever before. Immigration has not stopped this. If anything, it's given our children even more opportunities as companies were given the chance to expand faster. As I said before, immigration has not lead to massive unemployment before, and has helped define and create the country we have today. A very, very large portion of our nation are first or second generation immigrants -- almost fifty percent (previous sources)! How come this is only a problem now, a problem which you have almost exclusively used Toronto for?

-----

Bruce, people in India are driven to come to Canada by incentives. Not all of those 1.2 billion people are going to be able to come here, but those who are able to come and can get through the review process are going to be excellent additions to Canada for the most part.

The stats show a decrease in immigration when unemployment in Canada is high. It's statistically significant in all those studies I provided you before. It's true. People who do not have the means to come to Canada, simply cannot. It's true. Those papers I showed you with compared and contrasted the US to Canada identified the lack of mobility and other constraints on those living in poverty making it to Canada.

We have not been flooded by Indians moving to Canada before, why are we going to be flooded now? Why are all these people supposedly poverty ridden with tons of kids, when the mass majority of those Indians immigrating to Canada, as I linked in my previous post, are single, and between the ages of 20-44?

You have said what is happening is exactly the opposite of the immigration reports from the government and the academic reports from accredited experts. It's not just a bureaucrat report, what I posted are the real analysis of exactly who is coming across our borders, straight from the government and Statistics Canada themselves. If you wish to argue with this, you'd really need some form of prescience or omniscience which I don't have.

-----

I am listening to the experts, the reports, and the opinions of those who have read and used the actual information provided, Bruce. Just because I am disagreeing with you does not mean I am not listening. I have managed to respond to every one of your posts in detail, and I have managed to find a good deal of reports, have I not?

Immigration from the third world is rational economically. People in the third world can get education, degrees, and a plethora of other economic advantages which allow them to come here. As a past university student, no doubt you noticed the tons of students from other, "third world" nations which managed to come here for their education. Are they invalid for Canadian employment even if they have the same education, skills and wants as you? I would think not.

Nor, as Lemmy posted in your other thread, are unskilled workers all that bad either.

People living in the third world are not living in poverty all the time. Most of those in the top ten countries for immigration to Canada are first world nations, after all, and you should not forget that. That the statistics show that the mass majority of people come to Canada from the third world are also skilled or professionals should say something as well.

Stop the flamebaiting, man. I'd prefer you stop calling me son and stop "announcing" untrue things about what I have done, thank you.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I can't fucking follow your posts. I said the Statistics Canada data is that 558,000 immigrants moved to Toronto before a single net new job was created in the 1990s and you dispute it. The 558,000 indicates inattention to the issue by the government. That is inattention to macro economics by economists. I've studies the immigration data for 19 years and I have something to report - the experts are in the dark. Here's the fucking, fucking data:

The Greater Toronto Area took 6 years and 5 months to recovery its jobs total after the 1990/91 recession, until Nov. 1996. In that time some 558,579 new foreign immigrants arrived in the city. That is half-a-million immigrants before a single new job was created. Here are the Statistics Canada tables:


…………Statistics Canada labour force survey
………………for GTA (Toronto CMA)
……………..average annual employment


year GTA employment in 1000s
2007 2865
2006 2802
2005 2763
2004 2707
2003 2648
2002 2590
2001 2537
2000 2455
1999 2354
1998 2290
1997 2223
1996 2127
1995 2089
1994 1994
1993 1996
1992 1996
1991 2024
1990 2135


Peak employment in 1980’s business cycle, by month.
Jun-90 2184.08


Recovery point to that peak in GTA, by month.
Nov-96 2183.97


………………..Table 282-0090




Statistics Canada table 051-0039
..Immigration to Toronto area

1986/1987 43,256
1987/1988 56,120
1988/1989 66,671
1989/1990 72,228
1990/1991 79,047
1991/1992 86,872
1992/1993 98,762
1993/1994 83,762
1994/1995 86,997
1995/1996 84,670
1996/1997 92,316
1997/1998 82,285
1998/1999 70,804
1999/2000 88,256
2000/2001 117,602
2001/2002 123,836
2002/2003 87,495
2003/2004 102,536
2004/2005 103,948
2005/2006 109,349
2006/2007 93,341

[Regina]

Why 2011 could be year of the loonie
This could well be the year of the loonie.

While the Canadian dollar may not rack up the hefty gains of, say, 2009, when it climbed 16 per cent, it is expected to still remain strong throughout the year.

Yesterday, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. projected the loonie will trade at about $1.05 U.S. That's close to the $1.04 predicted by Scotia Capital, where currency strategist Camilla Sutton projects a strong year for commodity-linked currencies in general.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1856621/

[Lemmy]

Regina Regina:

Why 2011 could be year of the loonie
This could well be the year of the loonie.

While the Canadian dollar may not rack up the hefty gains of, say, 2009, when it climbed 16 per cent, it is expected to still remain strong throughout the year.

Yesterday, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. projected the loonie will trade at about $1.05 U.S. That's close to the $1.04 predicted by Scotia Capital, where currency strategist Camilla Sutton projects a strong year for commodity-linked currencies in general.

That's presuming inflation stays relatively in check. If we start to sniff any inflation, the Bank of Canada will drive up interest rates and that will send the Loonie soaring well above $1.05. We should be pressuring the Chinese to stop devaluing their currency to provide some relief on the upward perssure on our dollar. And I mean PRESSURING! Get Harper or whomever over there and make it clear that exports of Canadian resources and imports of Chinese wares WILL be restricted if China doesn't start playing fair on exchange markets.

[Regina]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's presuming inflation stays relatively in check. If we start to sniff any inflation, the Bank of Canada will drive up interest rates and that will send the Loonie soaring well above $1.05. We should be pressuring the Chinese to stop devaluing their currency to provide some relief on the upward perssure on our dollar. And I mean PRESSURING! Get Harper or whomever over there and make it clear that exports of Canadian resources and imports of Chinese wares WILL be restricted if China doesn't start playing fair on exchange markets.

Absolutely.....but I think I'd look for advice from financial professionals rather than "A fresh analysis from economist Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers."