Conservative Finlay Low Wage Immigrant Workers.

[Argus]

Like I said... Even though only 27% of Canadians were born outside of Canada, 40% of our masters degree holders and a whopping 49% of our doctorate holders are foreign born.

What is the value of a degree which is not recognized? What is the value of a masters degree when the owner can barely speak English well enough to ask directions to the bathroom? How does it help Canada to have the most 'educated' janitors and taxi drivers around?

As for studies there have been quite a few. For example a study by the Economic Council of Canada recommended increasing immigration with the eventually goal of having 100 million people.

The former Economic Council of Canada was a government department. It recommended whatever the government wanted it to recommend.

A University of Montreal study published in 2002 by professor Marc Termote used different methods and studied different countries and concluded that immigration has no statistically significant impact to the per capita income of a country.

Are you trying to make my case for me? I thought you were saying immigration was a big net benefit? Now you're saying it does nothing for us economically?

Edited April 30, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Exactly right.

The Canadian government also has a shitload of obligations, like taking care of our aging population, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure etc. It needs GDP growth, and increased revenues that result from population growth to fund these liabilities otherwise it will have to raise taxes.

The demographic argument doesn't really work. The average age of immigrants is about the same as that of Canadian born, so the idea they're going to be a solution to an aging population is wishful thinking.

As for 'crumbling infrastructure' the more people we have here the more infrastructure we need to build.

[Argus]

They have been importing office workers and others for at least ten years.

I realize that. The temporary foreign worker program was instrumental in bringing in a lot of foreign IT workers a while back, even while so many Canadian IT grads wound up working in restaurants. I once answered an ad for technical writers placed by an agency subcontracted by Nortel. When I found out they were offering about two dollars over minimum wage I laughed in their faces. Now, of course, I realize that lowball offer was deliberate, so they could bring in foreign workers.

Do you think that was good policy?

[The_Squid]

The Fraser Institute study was seriously flawed....

It is important to note that the average income of immigrants who had been in Canada more than 15 years prior to the 2006 census was, in fact, higher than the average income of persons born in Canada. These immigrants would, therefore, be paying more taxes than the average Canadian-born person. This turns the Fraser Institute’s analysis on its head and suggests that immigrants are net contributors to government revenues if their entire working life is considered.

http://cwf.ca/commentaries/fraser-institute-s-view-of-immigration-too-narrow

[Argus]

The Fraser Institute study was seriously flawed....

I disagree. Further, according to every single study or sampling undertaken by governmental or private organizations over the past decade, immigrant economic performance has deteriorated and continues to deteriorate as compared to the immigrants who came here twenty and thirty years back.

Btw, the person you cited is not an economist. He's a historian and has spent most of his life working for the federal government's immigration department.

[dre]

What is the value of a degree which is not recognized? What is the value of a masters degree when the owner can barely speak English well enough to ask directions to the bathroom? How does it help Canada to have the most 'educated' janitors and taxi drivers around?

Are you trying to make my case for me? I thought you were saying immigration was a big net benefit? Now you're saying it does nothing for us economically?

An awfull lot of these degrees ARE recognized and these people are working in their various fields.

Are you trying to make my case for me? I thought you were saying immigration was a big net benefit? Now you're saying it does nothing for us economically?

That study just says that immigration doesnt drive down incomes as many anti immigrant xenophobes suggest.

And I explained exactly why population growth is desirable for an economic perspective. It drives up consumption, and GDP, and increases the tax base, and it creates jobs. If our population started contracting entire industries would dissappear. There would very little construction, there would be less consumption across the board, less business start ups and business expansion, higher taxes, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think that was good policy?

Good politics ? It was excellent economics for what they're trying to achieve. Pushing down wages makes Canada more competitive and brings companies here, to hire more people who make less. Some people make more, but they don't identify themselves so readily (according to some) or they don't exist (according to others).

There are definitely some good jobs being created. Self employment can be rewarding too. Or it can be devastating.

Global forces are swirling - are you hunkering down or making a kite ?

[Topaz]

Michael, would you agree that there is a down-side to the economy too by forcing lower wages. People can't live on $10-15 hourly wages, consumers spending would drop and that can't be good for businesses either. So if the country's wages are going to drop, then, hydro, gasoline, food, clothing, everything has to go down too. Car prices, house prices MP's pension and wages. It seems to me though, only certain people's wages would be forced down and that isn't right.

[dre]

Good politics ? It was excellent economics for what they're trying to achieve. Pushing down wages makes Canada more competitive and brings companies here, to hire more people who make less. Some people make more, but they don't identify themselves so readily (according to some) or they don't exist (according to others).

There are definitely some good jobs being created. Self employment can be rewarding too. Or it can be devastating.

Global forces are swirling - are you hunkering down or making a kite ?

Pushing down wages makes Canada more competitive and brings companies here, to hire more people who make less.

I doubt that premise. Nobody sets up shop in the west for low wages. They set up shop here usually to sell stuff to Canadian consumers, and if our wages go down so will our consumption. If our wages go down too much youll actually see an exodus of business especially in the service and retail sector.

Canada ranked #1 on last years Forbes report on most attractive countries for business, and labor was not even mentioned. High wages means wealthy consumers, high levels of government services, modern infrastructure, etc etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, would you agree that there is a down-side to the economy too by forcing lower wages. People can't live on $10-15 hourly wages, consumers spending would drop and that can't be good for businesses either.

Of course. Every economic change, even those that are better overall, produces winners and losers.

So if the country's wages are going to drop, then, hydro, gasoline, food, clothing, everything has to go down too.

Wages overall may not drop. Or they may. But you can't say that "wages are going to drop" as a given.

Car prices, house prices MP's pension and wages. It seems to me though, only certain people's wages would be forced down and that isn't right.

That's the nature of economic change since forever. People have been buying into it for years now, and so the Conservative rockbed that voted for this in Canada and the US is seeing it. Now what ? This is what they wanted, so this is what they're getting.

[fellowtraveller]

Of course. Every economic change, even those that are better overall, produces winners and losers.

Wages overall may not drop. Or they may. But you can't say that "wages are going to drop" as a given.

That's the nature of economic change since forever. People have been buying into it for years now, and so the Conservative rockbed that voted for this in Canada and the US is seeing it. Now what ? This is what they wanted, so this is what they're getting.

Doesn't matter what they wanted, the situation in Alberta regrading employment was happening in spite of all the chinwagging.

There are no more skilled workers to hire in Alberta for the oilpatch, there are no more skilled workers willing to come here in Canada. The business doesn't need laidoff factory workers from Windsor, they have no applicable skillls for the big money work.

[Argus]

An awfull lot of these degrees ARE recognized and these people are working in their various fields.

Got a number on that?

That study just says that immigration doesnt drive down incomes as many anti immigrant xenophobes suggest.

Really? The study says the law of supply and demand no longer applies? Excuse me while I laugh. :lol:

The law of supply and demand most certainly does apply. It only takes the most elementary of logic (something almost entirely absent from immigration boosters) to realize that the more employees available in a certain profession, the less employers need pay. Why do you think business has always been such a big supporter of immigration?

And I explained exactly why population growth is desirable for an economic perspective. It drives up consumption, and GDP, and increases the tax base, and it creates jobs

And I explained exactly what that's so much drivel. Ten jobs is certainly better than five, unless you have ten people who need jobs instead of five. Then it's no improvement at all. We have a bigger GDP? So what? How does that help Canadians? We have more people to tax? Yeah, and more people who require services. So where is the net benefit? And if a significant number of those new people are too poor to pay taxes, then we have a net loss.

. If our population started contracting entire industries would dissappear

.

And again, as I've already explained, if we completely ended immigration (which no one is seriously proposing) our population would continue to expand for decades, before ever so slowly beginning to ease back. But it would be a century before it would fall much below our present population. And who's to say the birth rate wouldn't change during that time? Besides, we don't need to cut immigration completely. We need to realign its objectives to meet our economic needs and not the needs of third world people or politicians. We need fewer immigrants who are much more skilled and adaptable to our economic and social realities.

[fellowtraveller]

Got a number on that?

Really? The study says the law of supply and demand no longer applies? Excuse me while I laugh. :lol:

The law of supply and demand most certainly does apply. It only takes the most elementary of logic (something almost entirely absent from immigration boosters) to realize that the more employees available in a certain profession, the less employers need pay. Why do you think business has always been such a big supporter of immigration?

And I explained exactly what that's so much drivel. Ten jobs is certainly better than five, unless you have ten people who need jobs instead of five. Then it's no improvement at all. We have a bigger GDP? So what? How does that help Canadians? We have more people to tax? Yeah, and more people who require services. So where is the net benefit? And if a significant number of those new people are too poor to pay taxes, then we have a net loss.

.

And again, as I've already explained, if we completely ended immigration (which no one is seriously proposing) our population would continue to expand for decades, before ever so slowly beginning to ease back. But it would be a century before it would fall much below our present population. And who's to say the birth rate wouldn't change during that time? Besides, we don't need to cut immigration completely. We need to realign its objectives to meet our economic needs and not the needs of third world people or politicians. We need fewer immigrants who are much more skilled and adaptable to our economic and social realities.

Sorry to introduce some facts to your xenophobia, but

In 2010, Canada accepted 280,681 immigrants (permanent and temporary) of which 186,913 (67%) were Economic immigrants; 60,220 (22%) were Family class; 24,696 (9%) were Refugees; and 8,845 (2%) were Other

So, 67% of those who entered are skilled and experienced and trained workers. The 22% percent of family class immigrants would all be personally guaranteed that they will be fully finan cially supported by employed family members for at least five years after they arrive.

I guess you're right about the remaining 11%, we should let them die because we can.

Edited May 2, 2012 by fellowtraveller

[Argus]

Good politics ? It was excellent economics for what they're trying to achieve. Pushing down wages makes Canada more competitive and brings companies here, to hire more people who make less.

Well, if that was the 'excellent economics' then we need some different ones. When I think of all the big IT names which used to exist in Canada - they're all gone; bankrupt, bought out or closed down. I remember how they used to refer to Ottawa as 'silicon valley north'. I can assure you nobody ever refers to it that way today, unless they're joking. Is there one major It company left in Canada other than RIM, which is circling the drain?

[punked]

Good politics ? It was excellent economics for what they're trying to achieve. Pushing down wages makes Canada more competitive and brings companies here, to hire more people who make less. Some people make more, but they don't identify themselves so readily (according to some) or they don't exist (according to others).

There are definitely some good jobs being created. Self employment can be rewarding too. Or it can be devastating.

Global forces are swirling - are you hunkering down or making a kite ?

You are crazy according to Harper we are 2-3 years away from full employment anyway. Why would we push down wages if that was the case?

[Argus]

Sorry to introduce some facts to your xenophobia, but So, 67% of those who entered are skilled and experienced and trained workers. The 22% percent of family class immigrants would all be personally guaranteed that they will be fully finan cially supported by employed family members for at least five years after they arrive.

I guess you're right about the remaining 11%, we should let them die because we can.

Sorry to introduce some facts back at your massive ignorance, but the great majority of immigrants who enter under the 'skilled immigrant' category are made up of the FAMILY of the skilled immigrant.

Furthermore, the 'skilled immigrant' program is a bit of a joke, and has actually led to a deterioration of the economic conditions of immigrants. You wouldn't know any of this of course, because, as is evident, you just don't care if you actually know anything about what you spout on this web site.

Our system is supposed to select for success. But only 17 per cent of new arrivals are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills. Half never meet a visa officer at all. Most of the people we bring in are “family class” immigrants, including parents and grandparents. The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform estimates that recent immigrants receive billions of dollars a year more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

A Few Frank Words About Immigration

Yet another problem with this list was the fact that it stressed education and training to such an extent that it made it very difficult for workers with a low “ETF” to qualify at all. Therefore, a civil engineer who had never been to Canada, had minimal English ability and had few if any immediate employment prospects upon arrival in Canada found it easier to qualify for immigration pre-2002 than a skilled tradesperson who was actually in much greater demand in the labour market and had worked in Canada already or had a job waiting for him once he arrived.

Declining Income of Skilled immigrants

It would worthwhile to have a reasonable conversation about immigration but unfortunately, most of those on the 'pro' side, are almost entirely ignorant of virtually every facet of Canada's immigration system, and rely on pompous posturing and a preening sense of superiority over logic, facts or argument. Maybe it's just that most of them just aren't very smart.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Of course. Every economic change, even those that are better overall, produces winners and losers.

Oh, okay. Who are the winners?

[Michael Hardner]

Well, if that was the 'excellent economics' then we need some different ones. When I think of all the big IT names which used to exist in Canada - they're all gone; bankrupt, bought out or closed down. I remember how they used to refer to Ottawa as 'silicon valley north'. I can assure you nobody ever refers to it that way today, unless they're joking. Is there one major It company left in Canada other than RIM, which is circling the drain?

Yes, there are start-ups and large companies that outsource. Actually, almost all of the companies outsource now.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, okay. Who are the winners?

Who is getting rich ? Lots of people.

[punked]

Who is getting rich ? Lots of people.

Less people then before.

[fellowtraveller]

Sorry to introduce some facts back at your massive ignorance, but the great majority of immigrants who enter under the 'skilled immigrant' category are made up of the FAMILY of the skilled immigrant.

so what?

They come pretrained at somebodys elses expense, pay their own way to get here, and contribute immediately and longterm to our economy, and are the opposite of a burden. Don't you wish you could say the same for Canadian born workers?

[eyeball]

Less people then before.

Yes but these are probably getting richer faster and more so the higher up the food chain you go. The rate at which the income gap is growing is even more scandalous.

Edited May 3, 2012 by eyeball

[bud]

Sorry to introduce some facts

lets see your facts:

Furthermore, the 'skilled immigrant' program is a bit of a joke, and has actually led to a deterioration of the economic conditions of immigrants. You wouldn't know any of this of course, because, as is evident, you just don't care if you actually know anything about what you spout on this web site.

you're talking about 'skilled immigrants' and to back up your statement, you give stats on 'family class'?

Our system is supposed to select for success. But only 17 per cent of new arrivals are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills. Half never meet a visa officer at all. Most of the people we bring in are “family class” immigrants, including parents and grandparents. The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform estimates that recent immigrants receive billions of dollars a year more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

an honest debate requires that you be honest in how you present your argument. we should also look at the source of stats and comments. 'centre for immigration policy reform', is an extension of the fraser institute, which puts agenda before the truth. information coming out of anywhere should be checked, especially special interest groups like CIPR.

Yet another problem with this list was the fact that it stressed education and training to such an extent that it made it very difficult for workers with a low “ETF” to qualify at all. Therefore, a civil engineer who had never been to Canada, had minimal English ability and had few if any immediate employment prospects upon arrival in Canada found it easier to qualify for immigration pre-2002 than a skilled tradesperson who was actually in much greater demand in the labour market and had worked in Canada already or had a job waiting for him once he arrived.

Declining Income of Skilled immigrants

It would worthwhile to have a reasonable conversation about immigration but unfortunately, most of those on the 'pro' side, are almost entirely ignorant of virtually every facet of Canada's immigration system, and rely on pompous posturing and a preening sense of superiority over logic, facts or argument. Maybe it's just that most of them just aren't very smart.

i agree, we should have a debate about it.

the biggest problem that many of these skilled workers have, when they enter canada, is not that they're not qualified in the skill or that they don't speak english well enough; the biggest problem are the regulatory bodies and the acceptance of their credentials. this issue is slowly being looked at and resolved. for example, there are programs for foreign doctors in some of the provinces like saskatchewan, that fast track foreign doctors in giving them licenses.

those who have a fear of immigration need to take into consideration that canadians are not having enough children and with the baby boomers starting to retire and no one to take their positions and to start paying taxes, we need immigrants more than ever.

some of the steps that kenney is taking in trying to reform the immigration system are the right steps. for example, trying to meet canada's need for low-skilled and trades workers.

Edited May 3, 2012 by bud

[Bonam]

those who have a fear of immigration need to take into consideration that canadians are not having enough children and with the baby boomers starting to retire and no one to take their positions and to start paying taxes, we need immigrants more than ever.

It's a funny logic that sees a problem like:

"Canadians are not having enough children"

and sees the solution as:

"we need immigrants"

rather than figuring out why Canadians aren't having enough children and modifying the social and economic factors that cause this sub-replacement birth rate. The solution to "not enough children" is "more children", not "more immigrants".

[Michael Hardner]

It's a funny logic that sees a problem like:

"Canadians are not having enough children"

and sees the solution as:

"we need immigrants"

rather than figuring out why Canadians aren't having enough children and modifying the social and economic factors that cause this sub-replacement birth rate. The solution to "not enough children" is "more children", not "more immigrants".

How do you know that they haven't considered that ? Are we talking about generous baby bonus here ? Where do you think that will lead ?

It's weird to think that some conservatives would dig up a Trudeau-era entitlement program rather than have an immigrant darken their doorstep. Not that you're saying that, it's just weird to think about.