Applause in order? 35 million Canadians now

[Guest Peeves]

Don't know iffen this is good news or bad, but I'm on the good news side of the issue so long as we maintain a vetting of new immigrants and due diligence on refugee claimants.

You have an opinion?

http://ca.news.yahoo...-174256519.html

Canada reached a milestone, of sorts, this week.

Queue the applause — according to the Statistics Canada population clock, the Great White North now has over 35 million inhabitants.

It's an impressive figure considering that in 1982 we only had a population of 25 million -- that's a 40 per cent jump in 30 years, which solidifies Canada as the fastest growing nation in all of the G8.

Statistics Canada's Laurent Martel told the Toronto Star that the level of growth is primarily due to our liberal immigration system which allows approximately 250,000 immigrants to enter Canada every year.

[ Related: Fraud crackdown increases number of Canadians having their citizenship revoked ]

"This immigration rate is one of the highest in industrialized countries," he said.

"It's twice what the U.S. receives every year."

Martel predicts that with similar levels of growth in the future, Canada's population will reach the 40 million mark by 2026 and 50 million by 2054.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Peeves

[Moonbox]

That's the real caveat here though isn't it? The population growth is due to immigration. If it's good/productive immigration, that's great news. If a large percentage of that is refugees and/or welfare bozos, not so much.

[Smallc]

Seeing as the per capita GDP is at it's highest level in as long as I've been keeping track, and now ahead of the US and most other industrialized countries on a nominal basis, it's a good thing.

[Sleipnir]

The more rapid the population growth rate, the less predictability the results will be as a consequences.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Seeing as the per capita GDP is at it's highest level in as long as I've been keeping track, and now ahead of the US and most other industrialized countries on a nominal basis, it's a good thing.

You are right and I agree.

[Guest American Woman]

Seeing as the per capita GDP is at it's highest level in as long as I've been keeping track, and now ahead of the US ....

It is?? http://en.wikipedia....PPP)_per_capita

World Bank (2005–11)

Rank Country Intl. $ Year

1 Luxembourg 89,992 2011

2 Qatar 88,919 2011 — Macau 77,607 2011

3 Norway 61,882 2011

4 Singapore 61,103 2011

5 Kuwait 54,654 2011

6 Brunei 50,506 2010 — Hong Kong 49,990 2011

7 Switzerland 49,151 2011

8 United States 48,442 2011

9 United Arab Emirates 48,222 2011

10 Netherlands 42,834 2011

11 Austria 42,225 2011

12 Ireland 41,543 2011

13 Sweden 41,300 2011

14 Denmark 40,983 2011

15 Canada 40,440 2011

[Smallc]

I never said it was ahead of the US in terms of parity purchasing power. I clearly said nominal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Edited December 7, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

I never said it was ahead of the US in terms of parity purchasing power. I clearly said nominal.

http://en.wikipedia....nal)_per_capita

Really?? Where did you clearly say nominal? - "Seeing as the per capita GDP is at it's highest level in as long as I've been keeping track, and now ahead of the US..."

FYI: "PPP - adjusted GDP — preferred by economists when making international comparisons — takes into account the relative cost of living and inflation rates, rather than just exchange rates, which may distort real differences in worth."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethgreenfield/2012/02/22/the-worlds-richest-countries/

[Michael Hardner]

We need to keep on top of growth by continuous dialogue, by integrating newcomers and especially by ensuring that our services are WELL managed.

[Smallc]

Really?? Where did you clearly say nominal? -

Seeing as the per capita GDP is at it's highest level in as long as I've been keeping track, and now ahead of the US and most other industrialized countries on a nominal basis, it's a good thing.

Learn to read. Also, PPP and nominal numbers each have their relative merits. PPP is useful in some ways, but doesn't truly measure economic output. An example is Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which have nearly identical PPP GDPs, but very different nominal GDPs. No one in their right mind would say that Manitoba is nearly as wealthy as Saskatchewan.

PPP largely removes the exchange rate problem, but has its own drawbacks; it does not reflect the value of economic output in international trade, and it also requires more estimation than GDP per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Edited December 7, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Learn to read.

Oops. My mistake.

Also, PPP and nominal numbers each have their relative merits. PPP is useful in some ways, but doesn't truly measure economic output. An example is Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which have nearly identical PPP GDPs, but very different nominal GDPs. No one in their right mind would say that Manitoba is nearly as wealthy as Saskatchewan.

Why are you bringing up a province to province comparison? Learn to read. Repeating, and highlighting for your benefit: "preferred by economists when making international comparisons"

So while it may not have merit when comparing Provinces, it does have merit when comparing foreign countries. That would be Canada and the U.S., which is what we were comparing.

Edited December 7, 2012 by American Woman

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think the point was that government in Canada was doing pretty good...as compared to many others. If in fact Americas numbers are higher or lower from mine perspective so be it. As a point in a debate, well then numbers backed up with sources rule, but is it not merely hairsplitting ? Or is American honour at stake?

[Smallc]

So while it may not have merit when comparing Provinces, it does have merit when comparing foreign countries. That would be Canada and the U.S., which is what we were comparing.

But if you look at what I posted in regards to PPP, and it's shortcomings, it isn't ideal in all situations, especially when we're comparing general output of an economy.

[Guest American Woman]

But if you look at what I posted in regards to PPP, and it's shortcomings, it isn't ideal in all situations, especially when we're comparing general output of an economy.

It's the preference of economists when making international comparisons; the shortcomings you referred to were in comparing province to province. Though it may not be ideal, economists prefer it when making international comparisons, so evidently they think it's more ideal than nominal GDP.

[Smallc]

It's the preference of economists when making international comparisons; the shortcomings you referred to were in comparing province to province.

No, actually, they weren't, they come from the page where international GDPs per capita are compared.

Though it may not be ideal, economists prefer it when making international comparisons, so evidently they think it's more ideal than nominal GDP.

Some do, and some don't. When we're talking about total economic output, PPP is definitely not ideal, as international trade is not part of the equation, and a great deal of estimation is. Total economic output in Canada is now above that of the US on a per capita basis, but that doesn't mean as much to Canadians at home, because when you adjust for costs and currency, the US is still ahead. Ditto Australia.

[Moonlight Graham]

Seeing as the per capita GDP is at it's highest level in as long as I've been keeping track, and now ahead of the US and most other industrialized countries on a nominal basis, it's a good thing.

Well, you have to show a lot more than that. You have to link the immigration with GDP-per-capita growth. Much of our recent and future growth has been and will be in the Alberta oil sands, but many immigrants have to been going to Toronto and Vancouver. Last time I went to Toronto it took me 15-20 minutes to drive through a sketchy low-income area dominated by visible minorities, many of whom I assume have come here since 1982.

What is the gdp-per-capita of all immigrants over the last 30 years? That would be an interesting stat.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Smallc]

Well, you have to show a lot more than that. You have to link the immigration with GDP-per-capita growth. Much of our recent and future growth has been and will be in the Alberta oil sands,

No, not really. Every province has experienced both economic growth, and population growth. Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and even Manitoba have all been growing well, even though Ontario and Quebec have faltered some (Though they are still growing). On the other side, places like Calgary, Winnipeg, and even Saskatoon and Regina now attract a large amount of immigrants.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest Peeves]

Qualifier, I should have pointed out that the population numbers included

Québécois and First Nations some that are on occasion not including themselves as Canadians...maybe...?