Who thinks Canada needs to be much more right wing?

[Wilber]

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.

It is true, our birth rate is not sufficient to maintain the population we already have. While I agree that our immigration policy should not put an emphasis on population growth, people are living longer and a country with 60% of its population over the age of 60 is not viable, so I don't really see how you can maintain a workable society without some growth. Immigration is not really a choice.

[-TSS-]

Solving the problem of ageing population by increasing immigration is like curing hangover by having another drink. The immigrants themselves don't get any older, do they?

[Wilber]

Solving the problem of ageing population by increasing immigration is like curing hangover by having another drink. The immigrants themselves don't get any older, do they?

Everyone gets older. What's your solution.

[TimG]

I don't really see how you can maintain a workable society without some growth. Immigration is not really a choice.

Well the Japanese are betting their country on the idea that it is possible. So far their experiment is showing mixed results (massive government debt, deflation but rising GDP per person). I think this is an path that we will need to follow eventually.

Everyone gets older. What's your solution.

Dump the idea that people are useless once they hit 65. People have work longer and workplaces need to adapt to the needs of older workers. Edited September 2, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Dump the idea that people are useless once they hit 65. People have work longer and workplaces need to adapt to the needs of older workers.

I think this is a fair point. The 65 cut-off point belongs to an era in which life expectancy and average health of 65-year-olds was different.

[-TSS-]

This ageing population-problem which supposedly needs to be solved by increasing immigration is al due to the baby-boomer generation of the 1940's. Their retirement was supposed to leave a huge gap in the labour-market and only immigration could fill in that gap. Do you know anyone born in the 1940's who's still working? I don't. Yet there is persistent unemployment and no sign of that labour-shortage anywhere.

[Wilber]

I think this is a fair point. The 65 cut-off point belongs to an era in which life expectancy and average health of 65-year-olds was different.

It's already being done but the fact is people do get older and it is a limited solution. While many are physically fit for their age, they just aren't able to do many of the jobs they did before. They were not brought up with the latest technology either and find it difficult to adapt. Many will require retraining for a limited number job categories as they get older if you want them to keep working.

I'm 67 and even though I am healthy, hike mountain trails for over an hour every morning before breakfast and walk golf courses regularly, I know there are jobs that I can't do now that I did when I was sixty. I'm finding getting old isn't for sissies.

It's a little more complicated than just saying people should work longer.

[TimG]

It's a little more complicated than just saying people should work longer.

There is not really a choice here. The traditional pyramid where the few people lucky enough to live past 65 could afford to drop out of the workforce is gone. People AND workplaces need to adapt and that means providing training as required. But it also likely means that people need to get paid for how well they do something rather than how long they have done it. Seniority rules are perhaps one of the biggest structural impediments to adapting to an older workforce.

[Wilber]

There is not really a choice here. The traditional pyramid where the few people lucky enough to live past 65 could afford to drop out of the workforce is gone. People AND workplaces need to adapt and that means providing training as required. But it also likely means that people need to get paid for how well they do something rather than how long they have done it. Seniority rules are perhaps one of the biggest structural impediments to adapting to an older workforce.

You can't choose to do a job that you are no longer physically capable of, so yes the workplace will have to adapt. Seniority isn't the impediment it used to be. Courts have consistently ruled that age can no longer be used to force retirement

Edited September 2, 2013 by Wilber

[Moonlight Graham]

That immigration has been holding steady for many years is no reason to continue it. As Herb Grubel stated in his recent report documenting a $20 billion per year cost of immigration:

“No explicit economic rationale exists in the economic literature or government documents to justify the current level of annual immigration. Nor are there explicit discussions of its cultural and social implications.”

Given the massive cost of this program, not to mention its role in shifting our cultural mosaic, it really is shocking that there is no rational, economic, social or otherwise, no government study, no economic study, no criteria which states what the program's goals are, or how to measure them.

Having worked in government for over a decade I can attest to the fact you can't impliment even the smallest new program without documentation justifying all of the above, with multiple support from various other departments, studies, stakeholder buy-ins, etc. Yet for a massive program like immigration we have not one damned thing.

How are you sure there's no such study, or rationale, even in the past? Also, IF the report is true and immigration costs us 20 billion a year (yes, I guess we'd have to spend more on infrastructure to support a higher population...among many other costs), what about the money immigration brings to the Canadian economy? Are we getting a net benefit....I guess these things should be studies as you say. Maybe they are, I have done a literature review on the subject.

[Moonlight Graham]

Also, let's talk military spending. Why is it so low? Doesn't it bother anybody that Canada's military is too small to scare anyone?

You need a much better rationale to justify increased military spending than just having the desire to "scare" others.

What do you think?

Canada needs to be more "right-wing" on some things, more "left-wing" on others, while other state policies seem fine ideologically. That's being very vague but I don't have the energy to be more specific.

I also think some of your opinions are poorly thought out and not backed up with any logic or evidence, like your stance on military spending. A lot of this sounds like you've just pulled these opinions out of your arse without looking deeply into the matter.

[TimG]

Seniority isn't the impediment it used to be.

The main issue is expectations. i.e. people expect to be constantly paid more the longer they work. If we want the workplace to adapt for older people who make not be as able as they were in the the past then this preconception must go. People need to be paid according to their abilities - not their seniority (although experience does mean a lot in many jobs).

[G Huxley]

Looking for an economic collapse?

- Cybercoma

Your receiving a little less in dividends is not the same as an economic collapse.

[bleeding heart]

It's already being done but the fact is people do get older and it is a limited solution. While many are physically fit for their age, they just aren't able to do many of the jobs they did before. They were not brought up with the latest technology either and find it difficult to adapt. Many will require retraining for a limited number job categories as they get older if you want them to keep working.

I'm 67 and even though I am healthy, hike mountain trails for over an hour every morning before breakfast and walk golf courses regularly, I know there are jobs that I can't do now that I did when I was sixty. I'm finding getting old isn't for sissies.

It's a little more complicated than just saying people should work longer.

OK....I have to admit, these are really good points. Well said.

Edited September 3, 2013 by bleeding heart

[hitops]

It's already being done but the fact is people do get older and it is a limited solution. While many are physically fit for their age, they just aren't able to do many of the jobs they did before. They were not brought up with the latest technology either and find it difficult to adapt. Many will require retraining for a limited number job categories as they get older if you want them to keep working.

I'm 67 and even though I am healthy, hike mountain trails for over an hour every morning before breakfast and walk golf courses regularly, I know there are jobs that I can't do now that I did when I was sixty. I'm finding getting old isn't for sissies.

It's a little more complicated than just saying people should work longer.

Good points. I think the problem is that things change much faster now over the course of a career than they used to. Maybe it will require a paradigm shift where you simply have to assume that what you are doing today may be completely different from what you will do in the future, and simply expect to have to constantly learn and adapt. That's certainly the perspective I have at my job.

Edited September 5, 2013 by hitops

[Bonam]

Personally, I support government incentives for people to have kids if birth rates stay at sub-replacement levels. Arguments of "the world has too many people" are not relevant... this needs to be looked at on a country by country basis. Canada is not an over-populated country, we can afford to continue population growth for a long time to come.

If thorough and scientifically reputable studies show that free/subsidized daycare works, I think that is a solution that should be tried in Canada. Similarly with tax incentives, more generous maternity/paternity leave, or anything else that has been seen to boost birth rates in other advanced countries.

As for immigration, we need a system that ensures that the majority of immigrants that come to Canada are a net benefit to Canada and existing Canadians. Immigration rates should be reduced during times of economic stagnation and should be higher during times of economic prosperity and rapid growth. Immigration rates should also be limited so as not to overwhelm cities/communities abilities to absorb/assimilate the newcomers. Canada's major immigration destinations, like Vancouver and Toronto, are forming large ethnic enclaves, and these are not a healthy model of immigration, suggesting that current rates are too high, or that policies need to be implemented that cause immigrations to spread out throughout more of Canada. Perhaps a new immigrant category that makes it easier to qualify for immigration if one signs an enforceable agreement that they must live in an underpopulated area (for a minimum of x years) rather than an immigration hotspot? This could be a component of Canada's attempts to enhance its northern sovereignty, a way to increase population of northern towns and justify additional infrastructure there.

Suggestions of using the zero growth model... I don't think these are a good idea economically for Canada. Canada is a country with a vast amount of untapped economic potential. In very densely populated countries like Japan and South Korea, perhaps controlling/prevent further population growth and implementing a steady-state economy is a good model to follow. But here in Canada we should be looking at sustainable growth for many decades to come.

As for retiring at 65... I have been saying here for years that retirement age needs to be indexed to life expectancy. Sounds like this idea is starting to catch on with a few other posters here. It may be true that some 65+ year olds are no longer suited for some physical jobs that some of them used to do, but many 65+ year olds are still capable of many different types of productive work. Indexing retirement age (the age at which one can draw CPP/OAS benefits) to some % of life expectancy is one solution that alleviates the demographic issue. As has also been pointed out, many of the so-called "boomers" are now in/entering retirement, and the hump in the demographic profile will be largely over with within 10-15 years. We do not have to implement changes that will be detrimental in the long term to our society (such as excessively high immigration rates) to address a temporary problem.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bonam

[G Huxley]

So you want the one of the last too overpopulated countries to be overpopulated? Pretty selfish.

[jacee]

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.

Link?

[Army Guy]

You need a much better rationale to justify increased military spending than just having the desire to "scare" others.

Canada needs to be more "right-wing" on some things, more "left-wing" on others, while other state policies seem fine ideologically. That's being very vague but I don't have the energy to be more specific.

I also think some of your opinions are poorly thought out and not backed up with any logic or evidence, like your stance on military spending. A lot of this sounds like you've just pulled these opinions out of your arse without looking deeply into the matter.

It is very difficult to rationalize any military spending to Canadians, when most Canadians do not know what they do or how they do it. Nor do they want to or care to educate themselfs on our military....Deep down every Canadian knows our military is in sad shape,be it equipment wise, number of pers, or our capabilities.... they laugh and joke about with their friends but that is were it stops for most people any ways...Those that have educated themselfs are concerned and as they should be as our military forces face many serious challanges in the near future.

Having a military force of reasonable size acts as a deterent to others that may wish to do us harm, not just here at home but to other Canadian foreign assets as well, this includes our troops that we have deployed.

Having a reasonable military force also gives you a seat at the many tables around the globe, such as the UN, NATO, NORAD, it gives that nation more credibility to push it's own agendas or have it's voice heard. For instance Canada pushed the idea of UN peacekeeping at the time Canada's military force was well over 100.000 troops with over 7500 deployed around the globe...i don't think we would have gotten the same reaction or face time if our forces where at todays levels, barely able to deploy 3000 troops for long periods. It gives our policitcians more cards to play on the diplomatic stage.

The Military also is a first reponder to natual disasters, because it is suppose to have the equipment and readily deployable pers that is required, other depts are not set up this way because the military is the fall back for any of this. During the Winnipeg floods Canada deplyed our entire Army assets, and this was not enough, if this had been a major earth quake in say Vancouver with mass Cas , it would not be good for anyone. people would want answers and would not be happy when the government came back with "well this is what you wanted less taxes, small military" sometimes we have to make decisions that is for our own good and not very popular, but policitcians are not going to be that guy.....

Providing Humanitary aid again the military plays a huge role in almost every stage of this....once again because of its deployable pers and equipment....Canadians are very giving,all it takes is a 45 second commerical and some tears and they open their wallets.... except when it comes to spending on the military.

SAR is another service that our military provides, and nobody cares about it's condition or state until they need it, but like our fire houses they need up keep as well.

Our Navy and Airforce patrols our coastal waters to ensure our fishing grounds are not over fished, drug smugglers are kept at bay,the list goes on and on, the Military is the fall back on these jobs because we chose not to fund the other depts.....but what happens when the fall back postion can't do it any more....

The list to properly fund our military could be serveral pages in length...I'm sure we all could add a few items onto it.

[eyeball]

Our Navy and Airforce patrols our coastal waters to ensure our fishing grounds are not over fished...

They're looking in the wrong place, most of the over-fishing of our grounds takes place in the backrooms of Ottawa.

There doesn't seem to be anything we can do about Ottawa though...maybe a coup would help.

[AlienB]

I can't even stand in a public square without being hastled by police. The country is way too much of a police state. Every time I leave my house the chance of getting questioned by police is probable. Its just fascist corporatist and completely normalized. Even when people arn't breaking the law, they still get hastled. Thats a problem, its not about left or right wing, it should be about personal liberties, people should have their personal liberties, we shouldn't be forced to conform to a police cult that enforces fancy.

People on welfare isn't the problem, its a workfair system that is so poorly managed it doesn't support itself that is the problem. Its just failure by design to enhance the fascist police state. And no we don't need more of it.

Sadly no Canada is too corrupt and morally decrepit if right wing doesn't equal liberty we don't need more of it.

It is prison planet, and the free are being forced to a lockdown. Only the wage slavery and corporate masters are given their semblance of freedom.

It is just fostering loss of support. I could be waging war against the system and they wouldn't know what hit them, instead I'm being peaceable and I'm being walked on. That is a failed system.

I'm utterly disgusted at the state of society in Canada, it is run by scumbags, and no we don't need more of it.

None the less that is the world, not changing any time soon. None the less not getting my support any time soon.

It really doesn't matter. Policital alignment is a fabrication, its about what rights individuals have, and how much the government controls people, that is all that matters, the left and right both do that. It is socialization factor that matters, not how many people form the controlling party, if people don't have equal rights, left right doesn't matter, in or out is all that matters.

Government in its current state is just a make work project for control freaks and hyperfixaters. Just a whole lot of BS to let bad management stay in control.

Edited September 16, 2013 by AlienB