Who thinks Canada needs to be much more right wing?

[westguy]

Immigration is hot the Libs stayed in power for so long.

[Argus]

Europe's birthrates may be lower than the US, but they've been trending upward ever since they started subsidizing daycares. France is leading the way and other European countries have tried to study their model.

I'm not saying heavily subsidized daycare won't encourage some women to have children, but daycare is merely part of a whole raft of French goverment subsidies and programs to encourage couples to have children.

As for parents wanting to live in the lap of luxury while raising children, I'm going to take a guess here and say you don't have children. You lose subsidy at 45,000/year which does not provide a luxurious life by any stretch of the imagination. With daycare costs running between 900-1300/month that's 1/3 or 1/2 of middle-class earner's net pay.

In France? I don't think the French daycare is means tested, any more than Quebec's daycare. And that is what I'm speaking about.

Gone are the days when single-income families can live a modest life, both parents need to work

No, they actually don't. It depends on how much stuff you want. I know one couple who have 2 kids and are constantly in debt, even though their joint income is oer $150k. They also have new cars, went on Holidays to the Carribean last winter, and went on holidays to Wonderland and a rented cottage this summer.

In any event, my parents had three kids, and both of them worked. It's not like its not doable.

Still, for argument's sake, let's say parents just want to have a big house and all the luxuries in life as you say. We're here now. If someone is against immigration, they need come up with an alternative solution for replenishing our workforce and dealing with our aging population.

You are assuming immigration replenishes the workforce, and there's no evidence to support that. Demographic people also say it's a terrible idea for that purpose and won't work.

Remember that massive numbers of immigrants we let in don't make enough to pay taxes, which means they're essentially a drain on the economy. They also bring in their parents nad grandparents, so that the average age of immigrants is high enough it doesn't really lower the average age of the population much. And the next generations of immigrants tend to have fewer children (although we don't know if that will hold true for Muslims).

[BC_chick]

No, they actually don't. It depends on how much stuff you want. I know one couple who have 2 kids and are constantly in debt, even though their joint income is oer $150k. They also have new cars, went on Holidays to the Carribean last winter, and went on holidays to Wonderland and a rented cottage this summer.

In any event, my parents had three kids, and both of them worked. It's not like its not doable.

You completely cut my quote off where I made the crux of my argument only to disqualify it with one anecdotal story.

I broke down the numbers to you. If the second working parent is making a modest salary of $50,000, one kid's daycare takes almost 1/2 of the net pay and the second kid takes upward of 90% of the income. It doesn't make sense to have a second kid unless you're willing to stay home for 5 years or you have a spouse earning an upper class wage.

ETA - as for immigration system being broken and not cost-beneficial, then a plan B is needed to increase our productivity and take care of our aging population.

You can't say no to helping middle-class families and no to immigration without offering some other solution.

Edited September 1, 2013 by BC_chick

[cybercoma]

Yes, they both do it. Canad'a immigration system is run largely for the benefit of the political parties and their election hopes, not for the benefit of Canada.

Canada's political parties, instead of doing their damn job, use all of Canada's programs to their benefit through bribery or blackmail.

[cybercoma]

All the studies have shown that immigrants are fairing much more poorly than in the past, paying fewer or no taxes, while consuming government services. These people are not an economic benefit to Canada.

You know who's also faring more poorly than in the past? The entire middle class not just immigrants. But my point still stands that it's not a zero-sum game where 1 immigrants means 1 lost job or 1 more burden for the government. That's not how it works.

[Argus]

You completely cut my quote off where I made the crux of my argument only to disqualify it with one anecdotal story.

I broke down the numbers to you. If the second working parent is making a modest salary of $50,000, one kid's daycare takes almost 1/2 of the net pay and the second kid takes upward of 90% of the income. It doesn't make sense to have a second kid unless you're willing to stay home for 5 years or you have a spouse earning an upper class wage.

Then have the parent earning the least money stay home. No, it's not doable if the working parent isn't making enough to pay the rent and bills, sure. But too many parents think they need to buy a house, have a nice car and go on vacations even while raising very young children. That was my point.

You can't say no to helping middle-class families and no to immigration without offering some other solution.

I didn't say no to helping middle-class parents. I said I was not convinced free daycare or heavily subidized daycare was the solution. Nor that we could afford it, unless of course, we start requiring corporations to pay taxes again. Heaven forbid that happens.

[Argus]

You know who's also faring more poorly than in the past? The entire middle class not just immigrants. But my point still stands that it's not a zero-sum game where 1 immigrants means 1 lost job or 1 more burden for the government. That's not how it works.

And my point is that the statistical data shows a steady fall in immigrant incomes as compared to the incomes of Canadian born. That means they're more cost than benefit. Also note I'm not saying no immigration. I'm saying our immigration system is screwed up when we're bringing in people without the education and language skills to make a decent living here. Every government housing project seems filled with non-white faces, and I doubt that's coincidence.

As an exmple, Don't we have a big shortage of tradesmen? Doesn't Italy produce a lot of tradesmen, historically? Isn't Italy's economy in the toilet? Where else have we traditionally gotten skileld tradesemen? Portugal. Economy also in the toilet. Spain is worse. Yet our top three source countries by a very, very long shot are China, Pakistan and India.

If you take Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal, all the immigrants together from them in 2012 numbered about 1500. That compares to about 105,000 from the top four source countries, India, China, Pakistan and the Phillipines. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's especially so given that the economic chart I recall posting here some time back showed that immigrants from southeast and western Asia performed jsut about the worst of all immigrants in economic terms, far below those from Europe.

[G Huxley]

Canada should cut back on immigrants and promote lower birth-rates. Nothing will be better for Canada.

[BC_chick]

Then have the parent earning the least money stay home. No, it's not doable if the working parent isn't making enough to pay the rent and bills, sure. But too many parents think they need to buy a house, have a nice car and go on vacations even while raising very young children. That was my point.

I didn't say no to helping middle-class parents. I said I was not convinced free daycare or heavily subidized daycare was the solution. Nor that we could afford it, unless of course, we start requiring corporations to pay taxes again. Heaven forbid that happens.

At least you concede to some level that one parent has to stay home (for the average Canadian salary) if there is more than one child in the family. The decision is therefore between a second child or a 5 year hiatus from your career. Whether it's selfishness or not, that's a big deterrent to a lot of parents.

While studies show that subsidizing daycare increases birthrate, I certainly don't claim to have all the answers... I'm merely pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about immigration rates while at the same time opposing measures that increase population growth from the current population (a la OP).

And don't even get me started about the corporate tax-breaks. :angry:

[BC_chick]

Canada should cut back on immigrants and promote lower birth-rates. Nothing will be better for Canada.

I don't really think it's economically feasible, but I'd love to hear more.

[BC_chick]

Every government housing project seems filled with non-white faces, and I doubt that's coincidence.

I don't know, maybe because Vancouver's immigrant population is mostly far-east Asian, but I don't see that here at all.

[G Huxley]

I don't really think it's economically feasible, but I'd love to hear more.

Then that tells us that our economic model is completely unsustainable.

We need to make an economic model based on ecology. The alternative is we produce too many people who have a miserable life like in Egypt.

I don't really see how its unfeasible though economically to have a stable population. It may lessen economic growth, but so what?

[Ottawa_insanity]

Yeah i agree and they should stop licking BHO ass:

http://ppsimmons.blogspot.ca/2013/08/shocker-fox-news-reporter-suggests.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Ppsimmons+(PPSIMMONS)&utm_content=FaceBook

[cybercoma]

And my point is that the statistical data shows a steady fall in immigrant incomes as compared to the incomes of Canadian born. That means they're more cost than benefit. Also note I'm not saying no immigration. I'm saying our immigration system is screwed up when we're bringing in people without the education and language skills to make a decent living here.

Then perhaps we should make sure they're appropriately sponsored and provide them with the language and training that they need, especially for family class immigrants.

[cybercoma]

Canada should cut back on immigrants and promote lower birth-rates. Nothing will be better for Canada.

Looking for an economic collapse?

[Guest American Woman]

Then have the parent earning the least money stay home. No, it's not doable if the working parent isn't making enough to pay the rent and bills, sure. But too many parents think they need to buy a house, have a nice car and go on vacations even while raising very young children. That was my point.

I agree.

But even if working amounts to not much more than breaking even, it's for a limited time, so I think one should consider staying in the work world for those years as leaving for that time period results in giving up one's job and five years of accruing benefits and advancements. Considering the number of years one works, five years of more or less breaking even is a relatively short time in the overall picture. As a side note, I know of no one who chose not to have kids/ more kids because of the (temporary) cost of daycare.

Edited September 2, 2013 by American Woman

[Argus]

Then perhaps we should make sure they're appropriately sponsored and provide them with the language and training that they need, especially for family class immigrants.

Here's a better idea: don't bring in immigrants who can't support themselves.

Sponsored? Why? If we feel we need immigrants there's an entire continent filled with young, college trained people who often know English we could be recruiting from. It's called Europe. The unemployment rate for young people in many of those countries is 30-40%. I doubt we'd have a lot of trouble finding recruits. We've already got tons of Irish and British working illegally here because they can't get papers.

[carepov]

And my point is that the statistical data shows a steady fall in immigrant incomes as compared to the incomes of Canadian born....

Yes that is true, but it does not mean:

That means they're more cost than benefit.

Here is a good article outlining some of the costs/benefits of our immigration policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-immigrants-affect-the-economy-weighing-the-benefits-and-costs/article4106049/

"“Does [immigration]have a positive impact? The answer is probably yes,” said University of Toronto economist Peter Dungan. “The benefits have clearly declined over time, though, because people are not earning to the extent that their equivalent criteria or credentials should allow them.”"

The benefits are not as much as they once were - but they still outweigh the costs.

[Ottawa_insanity]

Looking for an economic collapse?

Your screen name is correct, you're definitly in a coma.

As for the other honest people on this forum,share this story about the danger of immigration:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/15-year-old-dominique-lang-blames-fatal-toddler-shooting-older-accomplice#

Edited September 2, 2013 by Ottawa_insanity

[Argus]

The benefits are not as much as they once were - but they still outweigh the costs.

I don't know, even in his own research he shows that the increase in population under the current system outweighs the increase in GDP. Clearly, the issue is bringing in people who are more likely to succeed, as he himself says. He also fails to mention the social cohesion issues, the environmental issues, and the crowding of cities which are main immigrant destinations.

It continues to amaze me that we have a program this big, this expensive, and this complex without any government economic or social studies to determine what our goals are, how best to achieve them, or even how to monitor and assess our success or failure. That's absurd!

[TimG]

The stat I watch is GDP per Capita adjusted for inflation:

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

This is consistently rising so immigration may not be a big issue (it could be a drag but we are still getting richer).

If it starts falling over the long term then we really need to re-think our immigration policies.

The biggest problem is out economies don't do well with stagnant or shrinking populations. Look at Japan.

It may be be true that immigrants don't do much for the birth rate but they swell the population which means existing businesses grow and new businesses start. This may be an illusion but I can't see any politician volunteering to put Canada through what places like Japan are experiencing today.

[carepov]

I don't know, even in his own research he shows that the increase in population under the current system outweighs the increase in GDP. Clearly, the issue is bringing in people who are more likely to succeed, as he himself says. He also fails to mention the social cohesion issues, the environmental issues, and the crowding of cities which are main immigrant destinations.

It continues to amaze me that we have a program this big, this expensive, and this complex without any government economic or social studies to determine what our goals are, how best to achieve them, or even how to monitor and assess our success or failure. That's absurd!

His model was for and extra 100,000 immigrants per year with the current selection system. An improved system would surely result in a positive GDP per capita growth.

There is no way we can avoid the issues you mention without limiting population growth. With increased wealth (GDP) we can better address the issues.

My gut tells me that 250,000 - 350,000 immigrants per year with continued improvements to the system is optimal. Like you, I would like to see an objective government study on the issue.

[Wilber]

Subsidize daycare/after-school care for more than just low-income families and that alone will increase birthrates. So many middle-class couples stop at one child because half their wages would be gone with two kids in daycare so it's either 1) you space them out five years apart and have to start all over again or 2) one parent leaves the workforce for 5+ years.

It's a wise investment to help middle-class educated families have more kids, but something tells me rightwinger against the idea of helping out anyone, yet alone middle-class families.

No right to complain about immigration then.

I'm not sure how effective that will be in reality. I think low birth rates are due to much more than just the cost of day care. While Quebec with it's $7 a day daycare has an above average birth rate, it is still lower than Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and far below the 2.1 children per couple required to sustain our population. Our culture just isn't into having large families any more and until that changes, we will need immigrants.

[TimG]

Our culture just isn't into having large families any more and until that changes, we will need immigrants.

Not true. There is no fundamental rule that requires that the economy constantly grow. Japan and other countries which echew immigration are currently under going a culture shift to deal with the effects of a declining population. In my opinion we should be accepting enough immigrants to keep the population stable but politicians don't want to risk the consequences of a population that does not grow. But it is still a choice - not a requirement. Edited September 2, 2013 by TimG

[hitops]

The majority of immigrants are granted citizenship under economic status. But taking what you've said, despite it not being true, the ones that don't "produce" anything are still part of the economy. Family members are sponsored by a working immigrant and their money goes towards the demand for goods and services, which encourages production and in turn creates jobs.

If you're so concerned about economic activities that don't "produce" anything then I would expect you to be more concerned with the billions of dollars lost in market manipulation and speculation. Those people are getting rich by moving "deck chairs" as you say. Yet, I've never seen any criticism from you about that non-productive area of the economy, about people getting rich without ever actually making anything or providing any kind of service to folks. Yet, you seem to criticize immigrants whose income is almost entirely disposable and goes into back into the economy. I wonder why.

You're assuming non-economic immigrants are always resulting in increased consumption by family members. Often true, but they take a huge toll on the health care system which dwarfs that. Something in the range of 90-95% of all the health care dollars you use in your lifetime, are used in the last decade of life, on average. This means we are effectively giving a lifetime of health care spending to somebody who will not independently contribute to that system ever. The sponsoring relative pays for more goods and services, but they don't pay double-taxes for health and other services for the relative. This is certainly not the only source of public dollars they draw from, but clearly the largest and best example. A few extra sari's and trips to the spice store and family visits for auntie x PST does not make up that gap, not even close.

You haven't given any examples of people getting rich without providing anything to folks, so I'm not sure who those people are.