Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 It is pointless to look at changes in any single year. Look at the trend from circa 1970 to today. Canada has been growing, our standard of living has been increasing - in part due to our immigration policy. How can you back up that last part - who's to say our standard of living, ie GDP/capita, didn't increase despite immigration? In fact the research of pro immigration people says just that - standard of living of Canadians is not affected much one way or another by immigration. But their quality of life certainly takes a negative hit from over crowding. Quote
carepov Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 How can you back up that last part - who's to say our standard of living, ie GDP/capita, didn't increase despite immigration? In fact the research of pro immigration people says just that - standard of living of Canadians is not affected much one way or another by immigration. But their quality of life certainly takes a negative hit from over crowding. Hi Canuckistani, Try to look at it this way. Since our current immigration policies have been in place, the quality of life in Canada has been increasing faster than almost any OECD country. Why? There are many factors that make Canada different that the rest of the OECD, immigration is a big one though. Sure, maybe our standard of living would be even higher had we not allowed so many immigrants into Canada. I don't think so, and most economic studies don't either. We are amongst the best in the world - how much better can it get! Another point, it sounds like you assume that a higher population density = lower quality of life. This may be true for you personally, and I have my own preferences, however we should not assume the average citizen feels that way. Most people gladly accept living in higher population density area to enjoy the benefits of big-city living. The ranking of world class cities and recent life-satisfaction surveys support this. Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Hi Canuckistani, Try to look at it this way. Since our current immigration policies have been in place, the quality of life in Canada has been increasing faster than almost any OECD country. Why? There are many factors that make Canada different that the rest of the OECD, immigration is a big one though. Sure, maybe our standard of living would be even higher had we not allowed so many immigrants into Canada. I don't think so, and most economic studies don't either. We are amongst the best in the world - how much better can it get! Another point, it sounds like you assume that a higher population density = lower quality of life. This may be true for you personally, and I have my own preferences, however we should not assume the average citizen feels that way. Most people gladly accept living in higher population density area to enjoy the benefits of big-city living. The ranking of world class cities and recent life-satisfaction surveys support this. Can you back any of this up? Also, you use standard of living and quality of life interchangeably. They're not. Standard of living is GDP/capita - it tells us nothing about income inequality, pollution, over crowding, or other factors. Actually we were not doing all that well compared to the OECD standard during the 90's. It's really only our strict banking regulations that saved us from the meltdown of other countries in 2008. And since then we have begun to slip back in OECD standings, and people are warning we may yet face a real estate bubble. Most studies show little economic benefits for Canadians already living here from immigration. But we have to pay for it with stresses on our infrastructure and govt services. I don't think it's worth it. To say nothing of immigrants driving down wages and increasing unemployment. Most people want to live near a larger urban center that has all the amenities. Very few of them actually want to live in high density areas - that's why we have the flight to suburbia. As far as I can see, none of your arguments have been about actual benefits of immigration, but that immigration can't be doing much harm. I think we would have been better off with less immigration, and certainly ejoyed a better quality of life in Vancouver. The quality of life in a small town with little immigration might not be affected at all. Edited June 25, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote
carepov Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Can you back any of this up? Also, you use standard of living and quality of life interchangeably. They're not. Standard of living is GDP/capita - it tells us nothing about income inequality, pollution, over crowding, or other factors. Actually we were not doing all that well compared to the OECD standard during the 90's. It's really only our strict banking regulations that saved us from the meltdown of other countries in 2008. And since then we have begun to slip back in OECD standings, and people are warning we may yet face a real estate bubble. Most studies show little economic benefits for Canadians already living here from immigration. But we have to pay for it with stresses on our infrastructure and govt services. I don't think it's worth it. To say nothing of immigrants driving down wages and increasing unemployment. Most people want to live near a larger urban center that has all the amenities. Very few of them actually want to live in high density areas - that's why we have the flight to suburbia. As far as I can see, none of your arguments have been about actual benefits of immigration, but that immigration can't be doing much harm. I think we would have been better off with less immigration, and certainly ejoyed a better quality of life in Vancouver. The quality of life in a small town with little immigration might not be affected at all. I have backed up my statements in previous posts: -Canada ranks #5 in the world for Life Satisfaction (happiness) as per UN study -Vancouver and Toronto are consistently voted amongst the best places to live in the world -Canada's GDP per capita is growing -Canada's unemployment trends follow the economic cycle (GDP growth) and most studies suggest immigration improves GDP growth -Here's a new one: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/24/canada-scores-near-the-top-of-quality-of-life-index-study/ How about backing up some of your statements? Perhaps you can start with, "Most people want to live near a larger urban center that has all the amenities. Very few of them actually want to live in high density areas - that's why we have the flight to suburbia." or how about "we have begun to slip back in OECD standings." Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) How about backing up some of your statements? Perhaps you can start with, "Most people want to live near a larger urban center that has all the amenities. Very few of them actually want to live in high density areas - that's why we have the flight to suburbia." or how about "we have begun to slip back in OECD standings." I have to back up the flight to suburbia? I live in Vancouver, nobody here would ask me to back up that statement, they'd would just accept it as given. House prices in Vancouver are insane, so people move further and further out making for a longer commute. Same is true in Toronto. As for our economic growth slipping, I can't find a link right now, but it has been periodically reported in the papers. After the crash I believe we were number one for a while, but that's long over. And again, economic growth doesn't mean higher incomes for the average person. You make a good point, that immigration hasn't turned Canada into some sort of hellhole. I'm not claiming it has, but I am claiming that a reduction in immigration and more focus on training Canadians for the jobs we need filled will make us a better place to live. To say that immigration hasn't destroyed the country, so we should keep it high, when I just don't see the cost benefit ratio being in our favor, I don't get that. Edited June 25, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote
dre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Economic growth just for the sake of growth accomplishes nothing. Thats simply not true. People in a growth economy have a different standard of life, can pay less taxes, and theres a huge ammount of economic activity that comes with it. Furthermore with our current fiat monetary system growth is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY... a requirement of the system. If growth falls below 2% for a prolonged ammount of time we will see a large ammount of defaults in the economy. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
carepov Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 I have to back up the flight to suburbia? I live in Vancouver, nobody here would ask me to back up that statement, they'd would just accept it as given. House prices in Vancouver are insane, so people move further and further out making for a longer commute. Same is true in Toronto. As for our economic growth slipping, I can't find a link right now, but it has been periodically reported in the papers. After the crash I believe we were number one for a while, but that's long over. And again, economic growth doesn't mean higher incomes for the average person. You make a good point, that immigration hasn't turned Canada into some sort of hellhole. I'm not claiming it has, but I am claiming that a reduction in immigration and more focus on training Canadians for the jobs we need filled will make us a better place to live. To say that immigration hasn't destroyed the country, so we should keep it high, when I just don't see the cost benefit ratio being in our favor, I don't get that. You don't need to back anything up, just don't expect me to believe you when you make claims on "what most people want...". I am glad that you at least agree that Canada is not a hellhole. My point was more like "Canada is arguably the best country to live." It sounds like your stance on immigration has softened a little. Mine certainly has after reading the Fraser report (even if I disagree with it). I still see benefits far outweighing the costs, but there are certainly improvements that can be made to our system. Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Thats simply not true. People in a growth economy have a different standard of life, can pay less taxes, and theres a huge ammount of economic activity that comes with it. Furthermore with our current fiat monetary system growth is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY... a requirement of the system. If growth falls below 2% for a prolonged ammount of time we will see a large ammount of defaults in the economy. If you divide that growth among more people, nobody has a different standard of life, possibly a lower one. If you are filling the country with low wage earners who take more in govt services than they pay in taxes, nobody can pay less taxes. It's just economic churning for the sake of churning. Europe took off economically after the black plague killed off a quarter of it's population. No more periodic famines, labor became valuable and higher paid, innovation flourished. Same with current regions that experience famines - too many people trying to make a living off land that just won't support that population density. As for your last paragraph, that's exactly the problem. We have economies based on grow or die. Everybody recognizes that there are limits to growth, that the more people we have on the planet the sooner we will run into those limits. Yet everybody moans about the coming demographic drop off, and sets their hair on fire because population growth may come to an end at some point. We'd better find a way to deal with that before we're forced to deal with it. Same applies to Canada. If we could generate growth in the remote regions of the country, I couldn't really argue against high immigration. (Except from an ecological viewpoint). Be we don't - we stuff the immigrants into the same three regions.. Quote
dre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) If you divide that growth among more people, nobody has a different standard of life, possibly a lower one. If you are filling the country with low wage earners who take more in govt services than they pay in taxes, nobody can pay less taxes. It's just economic churning for the sake of churning. Europe took off economically after the black plague killed off a quarter of it's population. No more periodic famines, labor became valuable and higher paid, innovation flourished. Same with current regions that experience famines - too many people trying to make a living off land that just won't support that population density. As for your last paragraph, that's exactly the problem. We have economies based on grow or die. Everybody recognizes that there are limits to growth, that the more people we have on the planet the sooner we will run into those limits. Yet everybody moans about the coming demographic drop off, and sets their hair on fire because population growth may come to an end at some point. We'd better find a way to deal with that before we're forced to deal with it. Same applies to Canada. If we could generate growth in the remote regions of the country, I couldn't really argue against high immigration. (Except from an ecological viewpoint). Be we don't - we stuff the immigrants into the same three regions.. If you divide that growth among more people, nobody has a different standard of life, possibly a lower one. You guys keep saying this, but its not about how the pie gets divided its about the kind of economy we have. So far almost without exception standard of life has increased fastest in countries that are BUILDING. New roads, new bridges, new subdivisions, new homes, new appartment buildings, new airports. All of this activity happens because an increasing population requires more capacity, and a HUGE ammount of Canadians are employed by all this activity. If we stopped immigration and allowed our population to contract millions of jobs would disappear. There would massive contraction. As for your last paragraph, that's exactly the problem. We have economies based on grow or die. Everybody recognizes that there are limits to growth, that the more people we have on the planet the sooner we will run into those limits. Yet everybody moans about the coming demographic drop off, and sets their hair on fire because population growth may come to an end at some point. We'd better find a way to deal with that before we're forced to deal with it. Same applies to Canada. If we could generate growth in the remote regions of the country, I couldn't really argue against high immigration. (Except from an ecological viewpoint). Be we don't - we stuff the immigrants into the same three regions.. Free nations dont "stuff" people anywhere. As for retooling our economic system to allow for low-growth while minimizing the hit to our standard of life, the scope of that project is utterly massive. We need a new monetary system, new banking system, new credit system, and a fundamental rethinking of what money is. This kind of reform will only be born out of crisis. Both citizens and government and our political system in general are notoriously poor at long term planning. We are fire fighters... when a big problem is right in front of us, and we can all agree on what it is we can usually tackle it. But the idea that the people or politicians in this country are going to sit down and figure out how to deal with a no-growth economy that might not show up for another hundred years or more is really just laughable. Edited June 25, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 You guys keep saying this, but its not about how the pie gets divided its about the kind of economy we have. So far almost without exception standard of life has increased fastest in countries that are BUILDING. New roads, new bridges, new subdivisions, new homes, new appartment buildings, new airports. All of this activity happens because an increasing population requires more capacity, and a HUGE ammount of Canadians are employed by all this activity. If we stopped immigration and allowed our population to contract millions of jobs would disappear. There would massive contraction. Free nations dont "stuff" people anywhere. As for retooling our economic system to allow for low-growth while minimizing the hit to our standard of life, the scope of that project is utterly massive. We need a new monetary system, new banking system, new credit system, and a fundamental rethinking of what money is. This kind of reform will only be born out of crisis. Both citizens and government and our political system in general are notoriously poor at long term planning. We are fire fighters... when a big problem is right in front of us, and we can all agree on what it is we can usually tackle it. But the idea that the people or politicians in this country are going to sit down and figure out how to deal with a no-growth economy that might not show up for another hundred years or more is really just laughable. By that measure we could just settle immigrants up north and we'd be just as well off, since all this building would go on up there too. And there's way more room up there - we could double or triple our immigration and have an even higher standard of living. Quote
dre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 By that measure we could just settle immigrants up north and we'd be just as well off, since all this building would go on up there too. And there's way more room up there - we could double or triple our immigration and have an even higher standard of living. We dont "settle" immigrants. People in our country are allowed to move about on their own accord. If you want people to settle in remote regions we need to create activity there and THEN non immigrants and immigrants alike will go and work there. We can extend resources and mineral leases to the private sector, and maybe do some public projects as well.... Im fine with that. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 We dont "settle" immigrants. People in our country are allowed to move about on their own accord. If you want people to settle in remote regions we need to create activity there and THEN non immigrants and immigrants alike will go and work there. We can extend resources and mineral leases to the private sector, and maybe do some public projects as well.... Im fine with that. What I took from your previous comment, is that it is the economic activity brought about by immigration that brings prosperity. So surely it would make sense to subsidize the settlement of people up north, whether immigrants or native, since the govt would get it back in increased tax revenues. So we should be bringing in many more immigrants than we are right now. The fact that there are no jobs up north shouldn't worry us, since you seem to be saying that immigrants generate more than one job per immigrant. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 What I took from your previous comment, is that it is the economic activity brought about by immigration that brings prosperity. So surely it would make sense to subsidize the settlement of people up north, whether immigrants or native, since the govt would get it back in increased tax revenues. You mean moving people within Canada ? So we should be bringing in many more immigrants than we are right now. The fact that there are no jobs up north shouldn't worry us, since you seem to be saying that immigrants generate more than one job per immigrant. Immigrants usually move to where the jobs are. I don't think one job per immigrant is generated, as that's not even the number for Canadians. And, yes, many have advocated bringing more immigrants to Canada. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
dre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) What I took from your previous comment, is that it is the economic activity brought about by immigration that brings prosperity. So surely it would make sense to subsidize the settlement of people up north, whether immigrants or native, since the govt would get it back in increased tax revenues. So we should be bringing in many more immigrants than we are right now. The fact that there are no jobs up north shouldn't worry us, since you seem to be saying that immigrants generate more than one job per immigrant. What I took from your previous comment, is that it is the economic activity brought about by immigration that brings prosperity. Thats not exactly how I would word it. Its more about preventing contraction. Thats why your "share of the pie" analogy doesnt work. You are assuming that the two choices are the size of the pie NOW, and the ammount it will grow. But thats a fallacy because with a contracting population the pie would massively SHRINK and so would everyones piece of it. I have no problem with developing other areas of the country, or with limited government involvement in that endeavor. Edited June 25, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Thats not exactly how I would word it. Its more about preventing contraction. Thats why your "share of the pie" analogy doesnt work. You are assuming that the two choices are the size of the pie NOW, and the ammount it will grow. But thats a fallacy because with a contracting population the pie would massively SHRINK and so would everyones piece of it. I have no problem with developing other areas of the country, or with limited government involvement in that endeavor. Our population is growing, not shrinking. We could cut immigration, especially for family reunification and for low skill workers and still have a growing, tho slower, population. I think we can go round and round on this. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the economic benefits of massive immigration, especially of old people and those without skills, is of economic benefit for Canada. OTOH, it seems to be there is a massive downside in infrastructure stress and environmental degradation, as well as cultural problems. We're not going to be able to immigrate ourselves out of the demographic crunch that's coming, unless we brought in 1,000,000 young people in every year, and then we would just delay that crunch until they get old, only the crunch would be much larger. Meanwhile we don't train Canadians adequately for the jobs we have, because it's cheaper to just import people trained by another country - but that leaves that country short while we have under employed Canadians. I'm not arguing for no immigration. I'm arguing for a policy that puts Canada's needs first and adapts to changing conditions. Edited June 25, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote
dre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Our population is growing, not shrinking. We could cut immigration, especially for family reunification and for low skill workers and still have a growing, tho slower, population. No Canadian women are having 1.54 children each on average. To maintain our current population without immigration they would need to have 2.1 children. Without immigration our population would shrink rather quickly. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 No Canadian women are having 1.54 children each on average. To maintain our current population without immigration they would need to have 2.1 children. Without immigration our population would shrink rather quickly. I'm not talking about absolutely no immigration. Never have. Reduced immigration. Quote
carepov Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Here is an interesting study: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/grei-rgei/eng/documents/Synthesis_wp_000.pdf Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 Here is an interesting study: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/grei-rgei/eng/documents/Synthesis_wp_000.pdf That is interesting. I don't see it as a glowing endorsement of our immigration system. Again, any economic benefits are small or even negative, while it doesn't look at the stresses on our society caused by immigration. It certainly says that immigrants should be much more carefully selected and I agree with that. It also says that 2/3 of immigrants are family reunification and refugees. I have no problem with taking in a generous number of genuine refugees, and spending the money to make sure they succeed and don't become the calamity that the Somalians for instance have. I see not benefit to the family reunification part, that is something that should be drastically scaled back to only allow in when somebody marries a spouse from outside the country. Quote
carepov Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 That is interesting. I don't see it as a glowing endorsement of our immigration system. Again, any economic benefits are small or even negative, while it doesn't look at the stresses on our society caused by immigration. It certainly says that immigrants should be much more carefully selected and I agree with that. It also says that 2/3 of immigrants are family reunification and refugees. I have no problem with taking in a generous number of genuine refugees, and spending the money to make sure they succeed and don't become the calamity that the Somalians for instance have. I see not benefit to the family reunification part, that is something that should be drastically scaled back to only allow in when somebody marries a spouse from outside the country. I am glad that you read the report and also found it interesting. I am also glad that we are in agreement about Canada accepting a generous amount of refugees for humanitarian reasons. When calculating the cost/benefits of immigration we should really exclude refuges, no? Sponsorship of parents and grandparents has been but on hold and replaced with 10-year-super-vistting-visas. Good idea, IMO. The report does say that if we improve our system and increase annual immigration from 250,000 to 350,000 GDP per capita would increase by 0.8% or $200 per person. If it were up to me I would go in this direction. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) There's no way to prove they're the same either. But you have a brain. You can see that an Irishman or Englishman or Italian coming over to early twentieth century Canada is going to have a lot easier time adapting and integrating than an Iranian Muslim coming over today. I take it you're not really familiar with the struggles of Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. To say they had an easier time "adapting" and "integrating" is a considerable mischaracterization of the suffering and discrimination those communities faced. Considering the lack of any kind of social safety net in that era, one could put together a pretty decent argument their experiences were worse than what an Iranian Muslim would face today. In fact, even to this day when you ask many Canadian-born people what their nationality is, they will respond with "Italian" or "Irish" if they are from those groups. Edited June 29, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Considering the lack of any kind of social safety net in that era, one could put together a pretty decent argument their experiences were worse than what an Iranian Muslim would face today. I would add to that the fact that there was open discrimination at all levels, and to varying degrees, against these peoples. Added: Not that discrimination isn't there today, but we're talking about an entirely different society now which is inarguably more open to outsiders. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Canuckistani Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 That social safety net is what Gruebel is talking about when he says each immigrant costs us $6000 a year average. That might raise the GDP with govt spending and all, but is that really a wise use of our tax dollars? Quote
Argus Posted July 1, 2012 Report Posted July 1, 2012 I take it you're not really familiar with the struggles of Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. To say they had an easier time "adapting" and "integrating" is a considerable mischaracterization of the suffering and discrimination those communities faced. Considering the lack of any kind of social safety net in that era, one could put together a pretty decent argument their experiences were worse than what an Iranian Muslim would face today. In fact, even to this day when you ask many Canadian-born people what their nationality is, they will respond with "Italian" or "Irish" if they are from those groups. You're not getting the point. Perhaps my use of the term 'easier' led to some confusion. What I meant was that these people's cultures were far more similar to our own and so their integration into Canadian society came faster and more completely than that of an Iranian Muslim. As for the lack of a social safety net, that was a good thing. One of the untold stories of Canada's past is how many people immigrated to Canada, and failed, and then went home again. Today, those failed immigrants stay and go on welfare, or stay with the aid of a variety of government income supplements. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted July 1, 2012 Report Posted July 1, 2012 You're not getting the point. Perhaps my use of the term 'easier' led to some confusion. What I meant was that these people's cultures were far more similar to our own and so their integration into Canadian society came faster and more completely than that of an Iranian Muslim."Faster and more completely" pretty much ignores my point of the generations of racism they faced and the fact that to this day they still identify as Irish and Italian, rather than Canadian (or in the US, American).As for the lack of a social safety net, that was a good thing. One of the untold stories of Canada's past is how many people immigrated to Canada, and failed, and then went home again. Today, those failed immigrants stay and go on welfare, or stay with the aid of a variety of government income supplements.With all the same protections we afford everyone. And they didn't all go home. They retreated to "ghettoes" and formed gangs in many cases. They didn't go away. The fear of immigrants is as old as the country. The only thing that changes is their nationality/ethnicity/race/religion. This generation its Muslims. Last generation it was Jews and Asians. Before that it was Eastern Europeans. Before that the Irish and Italians, Catholics. Before that it was Africans. Who knows? Maybe next generation it will be South Americans. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.