Isn't it time to slow down immigration?

[Brunopolis]

As you should well know it takes a lot more than food to sustain a population. Even if we assume that there is available usable land, how are you going to force the population growth onto the vacant land. Historically it is clear that there is a shift from rural to urban. In other words, people are not moving to open spaces rather they are crowding into the already crowded cities.

Realistically, food is really all you need to sustain a population. Nations that produce a lot of food tend to also have a massive population. Our weather diminishes this to some extent but we can definitely support a larger population. Naturally, a population with just food and nothing else leads to severely reduced standards of living but I believe that Canada has enough of other resources to avoid this.

However, I do agree with you that in general our major cities will still be responsible for the vast majority of growth and crowding will happen. As technology improves we need less and less people on the field gathering resources(agricultural, mining, drilling, etc) and thus it leads to increase urbanization. This has been happening in almost every industrialized nation in the world and part of the reason the Canadian equalization program was put in place was to alleviate this.

Do we need to stop population growth? In my opinion, Canada´s economy will benefit from higher population growth throughout the next few decades. We should definitely address the issue but not at this moment.

[Argus]

I'm not going to read through 11 pages (40 ppp) of bickering, so can someone tell me if anyone has brought up birthrate? According to statscan, the birthrate in 2004 was 10.5 per thousand. According to the CIA, the estimates for last year's population growth is 0.89% and that's with all the immigration we have. If we don't allow immigration at the very least to stay at current levels we'll be facing a myriad of problems related to population decline. Has this already been considered in this thread?

This is something "the herd" tend to think justifies our high immigration. That's because sheep rarely question what they've heard somewhere. The demographics say we don't need anywhere near the immigration we need. First, we don't need the population to grow. Second, the average age of immigrants is only a bit younger than the average for Canadian born. Third, if we completely ended immigation, our population would slowly, slowly, slowly begin to fall. To rhe point where 30 years from now - half a lifetime in effect - our population would be about half of one percent smaller than it is now. Needless to say, if we sliced immigration numbers in half, only took the cream of the crop, our numbers would stay about the same as they are now - which are, btw, about 12 million higher than they were in the sixties, when - you know - things weren't really so very bad for us.

[Argus]

Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears when it was brought up.

It was pointed out to you that you were wrong.

[Argus]

Population on the decline is a problem for retirees. Not enough young people to take care of the elderly easily. We're big enough and have enough usable land that we don't have to worry about overpopulation for at least the next 100 years so why not grow?

We are NOT big enough if you examine how much of the country is largely uninhabitable. A big population means that resoures are stretched thinner. Do big populations make India or Pakistan or Nigeria good places to live?

Nor is immigration the answer to aging in the work force, as immigrants are pretty much the same age as we are.

[Argus]

I was refering to usable land. Even though 4/5 of Canada is more or less worthless territory the remaining 1/5 is still 2 million square kilometres. You can support a lot more than 35 million people in 2 million square kilometres of good land.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/15-5...4001/export.htm

Canada has plenty of food to feed it's people as our current exports indicate.

You can support them. But the fewer people, the more resources available for them. There is nothing profitable that I can see in store for those already here in doubling our population.

[Renegade]

Realistically, food is really all you need to sustain a population. Nations that produce a lot of food tend to also have a massive population.

Is that all we are trying to do: "Sustain a population"? I don't doubt that you can feed more people, but does that end in a better quality of life for the people already in place?

Our weather diminishes this to some extent but we can definitely support a larger population. Naturally, a population with just food and nothing else leads to severely reduced standards of living but I believe that Canada has enough of other resources to avoid this.

Other resources such as? Will more population produce more food or more resources or deplete existing resources faster. Even if we can sustain a larger population why would we want to and deplete resources faster.

However, I do agree with you that in general our major cities will still be responsible for the vast majority of growth and crowding will happen. As technology improves we need less and less people on the field gathering resources(agricultural, mining, drilling, etc) and thus it leads to increase urbanization. This has been happening in almost every industrialized nation in the world and part of the reason the Canadian equalization program was put in place was to alleviate this.

So in your visiion of increased growth, how do you avoid this? Clearly the history has been for denser and denser urbanization despite equalization programs. I don't know how anyone's quality of life would be better in Toronto or Vancouver with increased population density.

Do we need to stop population growth? In my opinion, Canada´s economy will benefit from higher population growth throughout the next few decades. We should definitely address the issue but not at this moment.

There are better ways to benefit the economy than population growth. Sure the economy will grow when the populaiton grows but that doesn't imply that the standard of living gets better. The better way to benefit the economy is by increased productivity. Better use of the human capital we already have will generate growth which is both smart and sustainable.

[Brunopolis]

Is that all we are trying to do: "Sustain a population"? I don't doubt that you can feed more people, but does that end in a better quality of life for the people already in place?

Other resources such as? Will more population produce more food or more resources or deplete existing resources faster. Even if we can sustain a larger population why would we want to and deplete resources faster.

So in your visiion of increased growth, how do you avoid this? Clearly the history has been for denser and denser urbanization despite equalization programs. I don't know how anyone's quality of life would be better in Toronto or Vancouver with increased population density.

There are better ways to benefit the economy than population growth. Sure the economy will grow when the populaiton grows but that doesn't imply that the standard of living gets better. The better way to benefit the economy is by increased productivity. Better use of the human capital we already have will generate growth which is both smart and sustainable.

Damn this spanish keyboard(Im posting from Uruguay). A lot of the shift and alt keys are in different locations making it hard to use the punctuation keys.

Anyways, I agree with your first point. We just differ what the sustainable population of Canada can be without large side effects.

As for my comment on other resources Im refering to the tremendous amounts of lumber, hydro, and minerals at Canadas disposal.

As for my vision of increased growth, the densification of urban areas cannot really be completely avoided. People choose to live where they choose to live. Equalization wealth distribution moves money to less populated regions encouraging people to stay there helping Canada spread itself out a little more populationwise. Imagine if Quebec didnt have access to equalization money? They would go bankrupt in half a second and a large portion of their population would move to Ontario.

Also, densification, in and of itself, isnt as bad as you make it out to be. For one, their is the economy of scale where services are cheaper to provide in more dense areas and second a larger economy provides more competition. That is why many things are considerably cheaper in the United States.

Im not saying their are no downsides. I think their are downsides to increased population growth. However, my opinion is that the benefits outway the detriments.

As a side note I dont agree with the Equalization plan. Its intentions are noble but the way wealth transfers work between provinces are completely flawed. Using the money allocated to the equalization plan to give citizens of poorer and more remote regions larger tax breaks would probably be a better idea. Then the people of those regions can choose how the money is spent.

[Renegade]

As for my comment on other resources Im refering to the tremendous amounts of lumber, hydro, and minerals at Canadas disposal.

OK but virtually all the resources are not infinite. A larger population consumes resources faster than a smaller one. In any case if we have a large amount of resources, we build weath by trading those to other countries, not necessarily consuming them internally.

As for my vision of increased growth, the densification of urban areas cannot really be completely avoided. People choose to live where they choose to live. Equalization wealth distribution moves money to less populated regions encouraging people to stay there helping Canada spread itself out a little more populationwise.

Actually it distorts rational choices. Without equalization there is more incentive for people to move where we need them (for example from Nfld to Alberta). Equalization encourages people to stay where they are not needed.

You seem to agree with me in a couple of areas:

1. Growth will result in increased urban densification.

2. There is already sufficient urban densification.

Given this you don't seem to have a compelling case for greater population growth.

Imagine if Quebec didnt have access to equalization money? They would go bankrupt in half a second and a large portion of their population would move to Ontario.

Great. They should move if Quebec can't provide them the quality of life they feel they can attain elsewhere.

Also, densification, in and of itself, isnt as bad as you make it out to be. For one, their is the economy of scale where services are cheaper to provide in more dense areas and second a larger economy provides more competition. That is why many things are considerably cheaper in the United States.

No it isn't bad up to a point. We already have crowded cities. Cities the size of NY do not deliver services more efficiently than cities the size of Toronto, and when they do the quality of life inevitably suffers. Do you really think that people prefer giving up lifestyles like single-family home ownership to live in crowded appartments like is the norm in NY?

Im not saying their are no downsides. I think their are downsides to increased population growth. However, my opinion is that the benefits outway the detriments.

Actually very few benefits have been pointed out other than the pryamid scheme of social benfits. Surely if you were creating a program, you would not create which depended upon indefinite population growth. The quicker we wean ourselves off this the better.

As a side note I dont agree with the Equalization plan. Its intentions are noble but the way wealth transfers work between provinces are completely flawed. Using the money allocated to the equalization plan to give citizens of poorer and more remote regions larger tax breaks would probably be a better idea. Then the people of those regions can choose how the money is spent.

The whole scheme and intent is flawed. Collecting money so it can give it back and losing some because of administative costs is an inefficient scheme at best.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Renegade

[cybercoma]

This is something "the herd" tend to think justifies our high immigration. That's because sheep rarely question what they've heard somewhere. The demographics say we don't need anywhere near the immigration we need. First, we don't need the population to grow. Second, the average age of immigrants is only a bit younger than the average for Canadian born. Third, if we completely ended immigation, our population would slowly, slowly, slowly begin to fall. To rhe point where 30 years from now - half a lifetime in effect - our population would be about half of one percent smaller than it is now. Needless to say, if we sliced immigration numbers in half, only took the cream of the crop, our numbers would stay about the same as they are now - which are, btw, about 12 million higher than they were in the sixties, when - you know - things weren't really so very bad for us.

With population growth below 1%, I'd hardly call immigration "high". But if it is, then your claim that population growth wouldn't drop dramatically with immigration eliminated is wrong.

Edited November 7, 2008 by cybercoma

[Argus]

With population growth below 1%, I'd hardly call immigration "high". But if it is, then your claim that population growth wouldn't drop dramatically with immigration eliminated is wrong.

Maybe you ought to read up a bit.

St. Paulo of the North

Too much, Too soon

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe you ought to read up a bit.

St. Paulo of the North

Too much, Too soon

The nation has lost it's mind. Firstly they give the Order Of Canada to Henry Morgantaler - who inadvertantly and in a state of delluded thought managed to genocide millions of Canadians who we now need but now have to import...what the hell was that?

[Brunopolis]

OK but virtually all the resources are not infinite. A larger population consumes resources faster than a smaller one. In any case if we have a large amount of resources, we build weath by trading those to other countries, not necessarily consuming them internally.

Actually it distorts rational choices. Without equalization there is more incentive for people to move where we need them (for example from Nfld to Alberta). Equalization encourages people to stay where they are not needed.

You seem to agree with me in a couple of areas:

1. Growth will result in increased urban densification.

2. There is already sufficient urban densification.

Given this you don't seem to have a compelling case for greater population growth.

Great. They should move if Quebec can't provide them the quality of life they feel they can attain elsewhere.

No it isn't bad up to a point. We already have crowded cities. Cities the size of NY do not deliver services more efficiently than cities the size of Toronto, and when they do the quality of life inevitably suffers. Do you really think that people prefer giving up lifestyles like single-family home ownership to live in crowded appartments like is the norm in NY?

Actually very few benefits have been pointed out other than the pryamid scheme of social benfits. Surely if you were creating a program, you would not create which depended upon indefinite population growth. The quicker we wean ourselves off this the better.

The whole scheme and intent is flawed. Collecting money so it can give it back and losing some because of administative costs is an inefficient scheme at best.

Firstly, Hydro is a near infinite resource and trees can grow back. Sure they are not infinite but we are a long way away from running out. If it werent for the fact our entire economy is geared towards shipping our resources over to the USA we would have no problem at all.

Secondly, many European nations build wealth with people and not resources. They are starting to have a crowding problem but that is due to a combination of the European Union and their close proximity to poor nations.

Thirdly, large cities can be very liveable if they are built properly. Sometimes the small size of a city makes things worse. Ive lived in Ottawa for 17 years and I must say that city could really benefit from an increased population and densification. Right now the current size(approximately 1.2 million metropolitan area) doesnt justify the construction of a metro and the cities extended nature makes going to work an absolute chore. Torontos metro service is amazing and even though the city isnt as pretty it is a lot more comfortable to live in.

Also comparing Canadian cities to American cities is a little disengenious. American cities as a whole have more crime and worse public services than Canadian cities. I could compare Modesto, California to say Toronto and come to the conclusion larger cities are better. Size isnt everything when it comes to how liveable a city is.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.htm

I have never said we have to increase population growth. Just keep it as it is until we reach the amount of people we need. And we can still grow our economy with more people and as long as we make sure they dont end up all in Toronto(this will be hard) we should do just fine.

Anyways, as for your comment on equalization. I agree with you that it reduces rational choices. However, the alternative is increasing densification even further as people move to where there are more people. Something it seems you are opposed to. In Uruguay and Argentina their is no equalization and everybody packs into the same city. Buenos Aires has 13 million people and the nation only has 40 million and Uruguay has 3.5 million yet its capital city has over 1.8 million inhabitants. That is a system that doesnt work.

[Renegade]

Firstly, Hydro is a near infinite resource and trees can grow back. Sure they are not infinite but we are a long way away from running out. If it werent for the fact our entire economy is geared towards shipping our resources over to the USA we would have no problem at all.

Yes as you point out they are not infiite but rather renewalble. There is not indication that more population would lead to more harvesting of resources but rather it would lead to more consumption of resources and less available for export. How is is beneficial to the current inhabitents if instead of exporting the resources it is now internally consumed?

Secondly, many European nations build wealth with people and not resources. They are starting to have a crowding problem but that is due to a combination of the European Union and their close proximity to poor nations.

Yes and there is no reason why we couldn't build wealth from our people, but we do not need additional people to do so. The fact is that more population does not equal more wealth is demonstrated by the fact that most of the countries which have the highest standard of living do NOT have the largest population density. If more population means more wealth then why would that be?

Thirdly, large cities can be very liveable if they are built properly. Sometimes the small size of a city makes things worse. Ive lived in Ottawa for 17 years and I must say that city could really benefit from an increased population and densification. Right now the current size(approximately 1.2 million metropolitan area) doesnt justify the construction of a metro and the cities extended nature makes going to work an absolute chore. Torontos metro service is amazing and even though the city isnt as pretty it is a lot more comfortable to live in.

That is completely subjective. Many people pefer the advantages of smaller/ less dense living over the convenience of big citiy density.

Also comparing Canadian cities to American cities is a little disengenious. American cities as a whole have more crime and worse public services than Canadian cities. I could compare Modesto, California to say Toronto and come to the conclusion larger cities are better. Size isnt everything when it comes to how liveable a city is.

I use the US because it is the one you brought up as a point of comparison ("That is why many things are considerably cheaper in the United States.")

I have never said we have to increase population growth. Just keep it as it is until we reach the amount of people we need. And we can still grow our economy with more people and as long as we make sure they dont end up all in Toronto(this will be hard) we should do just fine.

We can also grow our economy with the same or fewer people by enhancing the productivity of people. IOW, we don't need more people as a prerequiiste to continue to improve our standard of living.

Anyways, as for your comment on equalization. I agree with you that it reduces rational choices. However, the alternative is increasing densification even further as people move to where there are more people. Something it seems you are opposed to. In Uruguay and Argentina their is no equalization and everybody packs into the same city. Buenos Aires has 13 million people and the nation only has 40 million and Uruguay has 3.5 million yet its capital city has over 1.8 million inhabitants. That is a system that doesnt work.

People should move to cities if it makes economic sense for them to move to cities, not because of artifical inducements put in place by the government. If people are moving to the cities, increasing densification, how does it make any sense to further accelerate that pressure by increasing the population. Disproportionately cities will be the ones absorbing that growth. You have your self stated that there is no easy way to stop that.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Renegade

[Argus]

Also, densification, in and of itself, isnt as bad as you make it out to be. For one, their is the economy of scale where services are cheaper to provide in more dense areas and second a larger economy provides more competition. That is why many things are considerably cheaper in the United States.

Im not saying their are no downsides. I think their are downsides to increased population growth. However, my opinion is that the benefits outway the detriments.

I don't believe you've really done much of a job of demonstrating the benefits, other than to suggest there MIGHT be some.

We know that the downsides include:

Increased pollution.

Increased use of resources

Increased densification

Decreased farmland and forest land

There are also cultural factors to take into account given the vast difference between the native cultures of most of our immigrants and the cultures and values here in Canada. Also, immigrants are increasingly more likely to be living in poverty, so we risk creating an underclass of resentful welfare lifers, of filling our public housing projects with visible minorities and adding to crime.

So what exactly are the demonstrable benefits? Bear in mind the links I posted above on the subject of immigration.

Here's another, btw. Economics of immigration

[Brunopolis]

I don't believe you've really done much of a job of demonstrating the benefits, other than to suggest there MIGHT be some.

We know that the downsides include:

Increased pollution.

Increased use of resources

Increased densification

Decreased farmland and forest land

There are also cultural factors to take into account given the vast difference between the native cultures of most of our immigrants and the cultures and values here in Canada. Also, immigrants are increasingly more likely to be living in poverty, so we risk creating an underclass of resentful welfare lifers, of filling our public housing projects with visible minorities and adding to crime.

So what exactly are the demonstrable benefits? Bear in mind the links I posted above on the subject of immigration.

Here's another, btw. Economics of immigration

I was trying to list various other benefits(obviously not as important) but the largest benefit is as regenade put it the "pyramid scheme of social benefits". If we stopped accepting immigrants we would see our nation become(on average) much older)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_ageing

This decreases productivity and increases health care costs dramatically. This is very important to our economic power as a nation.

I'm not trying to say population growth is nothing but gains. Their are disadvantages but we are in a country that is very under-populated and we have plenty of room to grow both our nation and economy.

[wulf42]

If we stopped accepting immigrants we would see our nation become(on average) much older)

[

The problem isn't with letting immigrants into the country, its the type of immigrants we let in that causes the problem.

[Renegade]

I was trying to list various other benefits(obviously not as important) but the largest benefit is as regenade put it the "pyramid scheme of social benefits". If we stopped accepting immigrants we would see our nation become(on average) much older)

Are you actually defending that the pyramid scheme of social beneifts is a sound way to structure such programs? If you are not, why use it a rationale for population growth?

If we stopped accepting immigrants we would see our nation become(on average) much older)

Part of the issue is the criteria by which we accept immigrants doesn't focus on our needs. For example if we are focused on growing our workforce, we would recruit dual-income familes with specific skills mapped to our labour needs. Family class immigrants such as aged parents do not beneift us and should not be accepted.

This decreases productivity and increases health care costs dramatically. This is very important to our economic power as a nation.

Population growth doesn't reduce the increased health care costs. Those aging people will still be there consuming medical services. All you get to do is hoist the burden on more people until the country weans itself from this scheme.

I'm not trying to say population growth is nothing but gains. Their are disadvantages but we are in a country that is very under-populated and we have plenty of room to grow both our nation and economy.

How do we esablish the opitmium level for population? How do we know we are not already at or past that level? Clearly much of the determination are subjective, but it shows that a "need" for population growth cannot be pointed to as a justitication for immigration.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Renegade

[Oleg Bach]

I see only one reason to increase the immigrant population...so they can work at the old folks home and slap us around while we sit in dirty diapers. To bad we had that delluded tweak Morgantaler deplete the tribe of what would have been our own to take care of our own infirm and aged. The buses and subways are full of old and super old - and they are all white. What the hell was the liberal left thinking and why did the conservative managers no keep up the anglo stock?

Obama Babies perhaps? They could be the new workforce and care takers... The truth be that only the super rich corporates want more immigration to stimulate growth and continue to line their pockets at our expense - we have enough people - bigger is not better as we now see with more emerging social problems and the over taxing of resourses - bring in some doctors and that's it.

[Argus]

I was trying to list various other benefits(obviously not as important) but the largest benefit is as regenade put it the "pyramid scheme of social benefits". If we stopped accepting immigrants we would see our nation become(on average) much older)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_ageing

This decreases productivity and increases health care costs dramatically. This is very important to our economic power as a nation.

The problem with that argument is it doesn't work. If you cared to read the cites I've put up you'd learn that the average age of immigrants is only a few years younger than that of Canadians. We don't really stress age when we admit immigrants, so many of them are middle age, and they get to bring their aged grannies and grandpas over with them.

I'm not trying to say population growth is nothing but gains. Their are disadvantages but we are in a country that is very under-populated and we have plenty of room to grow both our nation and economy.

If you're including the tundra and the forest lands of the Canadian shield perhaps, but almost no immigrants settle there. They settle along a 100km strip along the US border. And the population density of that strip does not lend itself to terms like "underpopulated". And at 34 million people we are now actually one of the world's more populous countries

[Brunopolis]

The problem with that argument is it doesn't work. If you cared to read the cites I've put up you'd learn that the average age of immigrants is only a few years younger than that of Canadians. We don't really stress age when we admit immigrants, so many of them are middle age, and they get to bring their aged grannies and grandpas over with them.

If you're including the tundra and the forest lands of the Canadian shield perhaps, but almost no immigrants settle there. They settle along a 100km strip along the US border. And the population density of that strip does not lend itself to terms like "underpopulated". And at 34 million people we are now actually one of the world's more populous countries

I've never included the tundra as actual usable territory. About 1/5 of Canadian lands are usable which is approximately 2 million square kilometres. That is still lots of territory for 34 million people.

Thanks for all the comments to my posts. I still think we have room to grow but you've given me something to think about. 8) I enjoy the forums a lot more than the ones in other places. Mainly due to the civil discourse and the fact that we seem to have a bit of every leaning politically.

One thing is clear though. We're using immigration as a crutch to fix our own social problems(expensive to have children, lack of skilled workers, etc)

[cybercoma]

The problem with that argument is it doesn't work. If you cared to read the cites I've put up you'd learn that the average age of immigrants is only a few years younger than that of Canadians.

Except immigrants have more children on average. Children that grow up Canadian.

They settle along a 100km strip along the US border. And the population density of that strip does not lend itself to terms like "underpopulated".

But is it overpopulated or even coming anywhere near what a rational person would call overpopulated?

And at 34 million people we are now actually one of the world's more populous countries

One of the most populous countries? I guess that depends on your perspective. This chart on wikipedia shows us sitting at 36th right between Algeria and Morocco. I don't know if many people would consider Algeria and Morocco to be among the world's most populous states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

[Argus]

Except immigrants have more children on average. Children that grow up Canadian

Yes - and no. That's kind of a two-edged sword. Immigrants have more children because they have a different cultural background than Canadians. As soon as they assimilate, however, they have the same number of kids. Therefore, presuming the second generation assimilates, they will have the same birthrate. If they don't assimilate - then we've got other problems.

But is it overpopulated or even coming anywhere near what a rational person would call overpopulated?

That's not the point. How will crowding us in help? How will adding more millions of people using the same basic resources improve the lives of those here now?

One of the most populous countries? I guess that depends on your perspective. This chart on wikipedia shows us sitting at 36th right between Algeria and Morocco. I don't know if many people would consider Algeria and Morocco to be among the world's most populous states.

Most people would probably say that 36th among 200 makes us one of the most populous countries.