Pros and cons on 'increased' immigration.

[Guest Peeves]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/herbert-grubel-how-much-bigger-should-this-country-really-get/

A recent series of articles in the Globe and Mail suggested Canada should double its annual intake of immigrants to 500,000, with the goal of raising the country’s population to 75 million in 50 years and 100 million by the end of the century. The justification for this policy is almost entirely ideological. The larger population is needed to give more weight to the authors’ efforts to convince the world to follow Canada’s model of a truly social-democratic, multicultural and eco-friendly society; yet there is no discussion of the high economic costs the policy would bring.

excerpt:

The average immigrant who arrived in Canada since 1985 imposes an annual fiscal burden on taxpayers of $6,000, for a total of $25-billion annually when all recent immigrants are taken into account. This is the result of these immigrants having low average incomes and paying correspondingly low taxes while they are entitled to all the benefits offered by Canada’s welfare state. There is no chance to find double the current number of immigrants with better or even the same economic prospects as recent immigrants. Therefore, the Globe’s proposal would substantially increase the fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers.

I'm all for immigration, but not in numbers that would strain our economy, raise our taxes, or put more of a strain on our social programs.

Those lobbying for higher immigration numbers had best have a plan to accommodate the added costs. Tax payers can only be bled so much. The 250,000/tear, annual immigration now seems to be generous enough. That number seems to be financially accommodated and so within reason. We cannot simply be a sanctuary for the entire world.

excerpt:

Doubling immigration levels would not solve the labour and skills shortage and might even worsen it, as more immigrants would require housing, schools, hospitals and many other facilities. With current levels of immigration, 250 new housing units must be built every week to accommodate new immigrants in Greater Vancouver alone. The demand for professionals will also increase. For example, 4,500 additional physicians are needed for every million new immigrants. Nor would the doubling of immigrants solve the problem of unfunded liabilities of Canada’s social programs simply because the immigrants quickly become beneficiaries of these programs.

Canadians need a rational and full discussion about whether the costs and risks stemming from much higher immigration levels and population are worth the ideological benefits claimed by its advocates.

National Post

Edited June 8, 2012 by Peeves

[Canuckistani]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/herbert-grubel-how-much-bigger-should-this-country-really-get/

excerpt:

I'm all for immigration, but not in numbers that would strain our economy, raise our taxes, or put more of a strain on our social programs.

Those lobbying for higher immigration numbers had best have a plan to accommodate the added costs. Tax payers can only be bled so much. The 250,000/tear, annual immigration now seems to be generous enough. That number seems to be financially accommodated and so within reason. We cannot simply be a sanctuary for the entire world.

excerpt:

We are insane to even have the immigration levels we have now: 250,000 a year plus 250,000 temp workers a year, while we have so many unemployed and underemployed Canadians and our infrastructure is way over stressed. If we were settling the new comers in the empty parts of Canada, that would be one thing, but then there's nothing for them to do up there and nowhere to live. We should drastically scale back immigration. We should drastically upscale training spaces for Canadians to get the qualifications for jobs we need done. I can see bringing in temp workers for some seasonal work, or to fill gaps while we train Canadians to do those jobs, but that's about it.

[Michael Hardner]

We are insane to even have the immigration levels we have now: 250,000 a year plus 250,000 temp workers a year, while we have so many unemployed and underemployed Canadians and our infrastructure is way over stressed.

You're repeating the 'lump of labour' fallacy. More immigration doesn't cost jobs, it creates economic activity.

The 250,000/tear, annual immigration now seems to be generous enough. That number seems to be financially accommodated and so within reason. We cannot simply be a sanctuary for the entire world.

Stephen Harper is an economist, not a Good Samaritan.

[dre]

You're repeating the 'lump of labour' fallacy. More immigration doesn't cost jobs, it creates economic activity.

Stephen Harper is an economist, not a Good Samaritan.

Which of course is why governements of all political stripes have kept immigration policy the same.

The people that rant about the cost to Canadians dont understand growth economics.

Our economy is basically a ponzi scheme of sorts. It can only stay stable in the face of constant economic growth, and its hard or impossible to have constant economic growth with a declining population.

So really all this is based on how many Canadians phuck without birth control. The people in charge of the economy WILL do what they need to do to make sure theres a small net increase in population each year. Discussion about them NOT doing this is about the same as saying "well maybe dogs shouldnt bark". So as long we have a negative birth rate then it will continue. If our death rate starts outstripping out birth rate by even MORE then immigration will go up. If our birthrate grows in relation to our death rate immigration will go down.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that this is entirely a monetary issue. The requirement for constant growth is a function of our monetary system... theres nothing saying its impossible to have a stable prosperous society that doesnt grow, but it definately cant happen with this system, or with citizens that behave like us. So if anyone wants to really get serious about decreasing immigration in a big way one of two things need to happen... We either need people to start having sex more without birth control, or we need monetary reforms and a responsible orderly transition into a non-growth society/economy.

[Michael Hardner]

The other thing to keep in mind, is that this is entirely a monetary issue. The requirement for constant growth is a function of our monetary system... theres nothing saying its impossible to have a stable prosperous society that doesnt grow, but it definately cant happen with this system, or with citizens that behave like us. So if anyone wants to really get serious about decreasing immigration in a big way one of two things need to happen... We either need people to start having sex more without birth control, or we need monetary reforms and a responsible orderly transition into a non-growth society/economy.

You need to start another thread to explain how prosperous societies that don't crow can be created.

[Canuckistani]

You're repeating the 'lump of labour' fallacy. More immigration doesn't cost jobs, it creates economic activity.

Well with the massive immigration we've had for the last 3 decades, we should have no unemployment at all then. Immigration creates economic activity, raises the GDP. So does a good natural disaster. But what does it do to GDP per capita? If what you say is true, we should vastly increase our immigration, since it would be a net benefit to Canada. And many people are waiting to come here, so we would have no problem taking them. We could build cities for them in the north - lots of economic activity from that.

[Michael Hardner]

Well with the massive immigration we've had for the last 3 decades, we should have no unemployment at all then. Immigration creates economic activity, raises the GDP. So does a good natural disaster. But what does it do to GDP per capita?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-per-capita

If what you say is true, we should vastly increase our immigration, since it would be a net benefit to Canada. And many people are waiting to come here, so we would have no problem taking them. We could build cities for them in the north - lots of economic activity from that.

We don't need to build new cities for them - it's more efficient for them to grow our cities.

Our immigration rates are very high already - I doubt that the government wants to increase them too much more.

[Canuckistani]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-per-capita

And nations with very little immigration have also seen their GDP/capaita rise. Correlation is not causation.

We don't need to build new cities for them - it's more efficient for them to grow our cities.

Do you think the infrastructure stesses of our big cities are efficient? The very high housing prices? The fact that smaller centers could use some of those immigrants but don't get them?

Our immigration rates are very high already - I doubt that the government wants to increase them too much more.

Why, if immigration is such an unmitigated boon to Canada. Doesn't the govt want to grow our GDP/capita?

[madmax]

We are insane to even have the immigration levels we have now: 250,000 a year plus 250,000 temp workers a year, while we have so many unemployed and underemployed Canadians and our infrastructure is way over stressed.

Well Harper is unlikley to follow the lead of doubling immigration, it does appear the Harper government wants to triple that immigrant temp workers to 750,000 and higher...

[Canuckistani]

Well Harper is unlikley to follow the lead of doubling immigration, it does appear the Harper government wants to triple that immigrant temp workers to 750,000 and higher...

One way to deal with immigration would be to make being a temp worker the only path to immigrant status. That way you are matched up with a job when you get here. If things work out for say 4 years, you would be given a fast track to get pr status.

But none of it makes any sense unless we better develop our training and retraining systems so that Canadians have the best shot at getting the jobs available. It makes no sense to import people while Canadians languish in un and under employment.

[Canuckistani]

MYTH:

High levels of immigration are required to ensure Canada’s prosperity.

The facts:

A country’s prosperity does not depend on a growing population or workforce. This is particularly true in the case of Canada since we are a trading nation and do not require an increasingly large domestic market to achieve economies of scale. Our prosperity depends rather on sound economic policies that stimulate productivity, make good use of capital investment and maximize the potential of the existing workforce.

[madmax]

One way to deal with immigration would be to make being a temp worker the only path to immigrant status. That way you are matched up with a job when you get here. If things work out for say 4 years, you would be given a fast track to get pr status.

I am totally against your temp worker apologist proposal.

Why should anyone be allowed to work as an electrician in Fort McMurray for $600 a month?

[Canuckistani]

I am totally against your temp worker apologist proposal.

Why should anyone be allowed to work as an electrician in Fort McMurray for $600 a month?

They shouldn't. I believe even now, the company bringing in the temp worker has to pay at least the average wage for that job. This would have to be maintained. But matching prospective immigrants with jobs before they get here ensures both their and Canada's benefit. The idea of temp workers is to fill jobs that we currently don't have people for - because of training shortages say. We should be addressing those shortages, but don't want to hamstring companies in the mean time. The other reason for temp workers that I can see is seasonal work - although I'd be happier if we found a way to get Canadians to take that work instead.

Overall, I'm for a drastic reduction of immigration, including temp workers. We are straining at the seams and I don't think bringing in this flood of people is a benefit for Canada.

[-TSS-]

I must say that I enjoy reading your opinions on this issue as here in my country all those people who are against mass-immigration have cited Canada as an example as to how a country should manage its immigration-policy as Canada has a point-based system of immigration whereby people's age, skills and possible existing relatives in Canada are taken into account whether someone is or is not allowed to settle in Canada.

[Canuckistani]

I must say that I enjoy reading your opinions on this issue as here in my country all those people who are against mass-immigration have cited Canada as an example as to how a country should manage its immigration-policy as Canada has a point-based system of immigration whereby people's age, skills and possible existing relatives in Canada are taken into account whether someone is or is not allowed to settle in Canada.

Yep we have a points based system. May be better than some alternatives, but we still get a huge mismatch between immigrants and jobs available. For instance the points system gives points to doctors, but when they get here they find they aren't accepted by the provincial medical association to practice. The association will have very few spots available for the training and testing they require for foreign trained doctors to be licensed, so many wind up driving cabs. Also, our point system is supposed to award points for language ability, but there are so many immigrants here who do net have adequate language abilities for the jobs they want - or any language ability at all. We also allow in large numbers of relatives of the immigrants, many of whom are just a drain on the system without ever having paid into it.

Since the 1980's when our primary immigration source became Asia, our immigrants have not done well - they do poorer than native born Canadians economically, whereas previously European immigrants outperformed native born Canadians. That does neither Canada nor the immigrants any good. One estimate is that each immigrant costs Canada $6000 more a year in govt services than they pay in taxes. It's estimated that figure comes to 20 billion a year, although this is hotly disputed.

The govt is trying to improve the system by doing a better job of matching immigrants to a specific job before they ever come here. That's a start, but I think they should be reducing immigration overall, as well. But that's a hot potato, and the govt would be called racist. Just as somebody on this forum is likely to throw the race card at me. It's not about the race of the immigrants, but about what's best for the average Canadian, not corporate Canada.

I think we need to stop looking at getting more and more people for us to have a prosperous nation. The planet is overpopulated, we need to find an economic system that doesn't depend on every increasing consumption to function.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Michael Hardner]

And nations with very little immigration have also seen their GDP/capaita rise. Correlation is not causation.

I only posted the data in response to a question. I didn't imply correlation is causation.

But growth is growth - so there you are.

Do you think the infrastructure stesses of our big cities are efficient? The very high housing prices? The fact that smaller centers could use some of those immigrants but don't get them?

Why, if immigration is such an unmitigated boon to Canada. Doesn't the govt want to grow our GDP/capita?

Why are cities bad a planning ? Lots of answers there. Why are housing prices high ? Also many reasons, especially speculation. Are high house prices a bad thing ?

[Argus]

I only posted the data in response to a question. I didn't imply correlation is causation.

But growth is growth - so there you are.

And growth is always good? Canada has a larger economy than it did when it only had 20 million people.

Are today's 34 million people better off than yesterday's 20 million people because of that?

Why are housing prices high ? Also many reasons, especially speculation. Are high house prices a bad thing ?

It is much more difficult to work up the funds to buy a house in Canada than in the United States. And once we do it is a smaller house, and we have to work much harder at paying it off. Don't you think that makes us worse off than others? And wouldn't continuing increases make us even worse than that?

[Anti-Am]

Immigrants are changing our cities. I vote for closing the border or just letting in 10,000 skilled people.

[Canuckistani]

I only posted the data in response to a question. I didn't imply correlation is causation.

But growth is growth - so there you are.

From what I know of you so far, this response is beneath you.

Why are cities bad a planning ? Lots of answers there. Why are housing prices high ? Also many reasons, especially speculation. Are high house prices a bad thing ?

Maybe cities are bad at planning. But certainly stuffing more and more people into the same space, no matter how well planned isn't a good idea. Do we really all want to live in high rises or an hour's drive away from work. High housing prices are certainly a bad thing. Look at what happens when the bubble bursts, for one thing. Look at the US, Japan, Spain... Also, Vancouver has a median wage lower than the national average, yet very high housing prices - what does that do to people who want to buy and can't afford it, or are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, and any interest rise, unemployment rise and they're done. Housing should be used for a place to live, not to speculate. This is another area where we create a division in society, between the haves (those that have the money or just got in early) and the have nots.

Never mind all the other environmental factors from overcrowding.

[Anti-Am]

Canuckistani is right. The more people there are in a small area, the more restless they get.

Then when it gets hotter, it boils over into crime.

[Michael Hardner]

And growth is always good? Canada has a larger economy than it did when it only had 20 million people.

Are today's 34 million people better off than yesterday's 20 million people because of that?

Economic improvement is generally a good thing, though not always better for every individual as there is a price for progress.

Are today's people 'better off' is entirely a qualitative discussion...

It is much more difficult to work up the funds to buy a house in Canada than in the United States. And once we do it is a smaller house, and we have to work much harder at paying it off. Don't you think that makes us worse off than others? And wouldn't continuing increases make us even worse than that?

It's more difficult for those entering the market, yes. If our goal was to make things cheaper, depopulate and make Canada less desirable as an investment location then making the economy worse would indeed be one way to achieve that.

[dre]

And growth is always good? Canada has a larger economy than it did when it only had 20 million people.

Are today's 34 million people better off than yesterday's 20 million people because of that?

Absolutely no question about it.

When the population is growing we are building. We are constructing new homes, new subdivisions, new roads, and new capacity to produce the things they will need and consume.

Anyone that believes are standard of life would be as high if we stopped immigration and allowed our population to start to decline is absolutely kidding themselves. Not only are immigrants more highly educated than your average natural born Canadian, second generation immigrants are our most productive citizens. More likely to be successful, more likely to own a home, etc.

Canadians are basically a bunch of entitled slackers. This country would simply spiral down the drain without immigration.

[dre]

It is much more difficult to work up the funds to buy a house in Canada than in the United States. And once we do it is a smaller house, and we have to work much harder at paying it off. Don't you think that makes us worse off than others? And wouldn't continuing increases make us even worse than that?

This is just government policy. We have made a deliberate decision to keep our housing bubble inflated and the government/banks have have prevented a natural market correction with dangerous and short sighted monetary policy. You cant blame immigrants for our government mismanaging the economy.

[Argus]

Absolutely no question about it.

When the population is growing we are building. We are constructing new homes, new subdivisions, new roads, and new capacity to produce the things they will need and consume.

We are doing that anyway, as everything we build has to be replaced and renovated and repaired. Besides, the bulk of our economy is based on resource extraction. If we had far fewer people, the profits and taxes on the extraction and exports of those resources would go much further than they presently do

Not only are immigrants more highly educated than your average natural born Canadian, second generation immigrants are our most productive citizens. More likely to be successful, more likely to own a home, etc.

Of course. That's why every public housing project is jam-packed with immigrants, and why immigrants drive our taxis, scrub our toilets and do all the other menial work. Because they're so productive and highly educated....

Canadians are basically a bunch of entitled slackers. This country would simply spiral down the drain without immigration.

Your opinion is not based on factual evidence, and there has never BEEN any neutral economic studies (I was going to say ANY period, but perhaps some business group has done some sort of study to justify it belong allowed to bring in lots of immigrant workers) to support your contention that mass immigration benefits us in any way, shape or form. Nor has the federal government, liberal or conservative, ever launched any such study to determine how many immigrants we ought to have.

That is because the economic benefits, even supposing there are any, have nothing to do with our immigration policy. Immigration policy is strictly designed as a political instrument to get votes from various ethnic groups.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Argus

[Anti-Am]

Dre said

"Canadians are basically a bunch of entitled slackers"

Well, since you dislike Canadians so much and like foreigners better why don't you move.