Keepitsimple Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 No. Why would it lead you to think you need both? If the problem is a falling population due to sub-replacement birth rate, then there are many possible solutions. One is immigration to keep the population increasing. Another is to raise the birth rate. You could use a combination of the two, but either individually also works. You could also reconsider whether a constantly growing population is even necessary. Once you have all the solutions on the table, you can evaluate the pros and cons of each. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that raising immigration rates is preferable to trying to raise birth rates. Do you have any concrete suggestions for reversing the trend in falling birth rates? The main reason is that elements of society have taken to frowning on "stay at home" Moms. In the 60's and into the 70's it was the norm - single earning families with 3 and 4 kids. By those same 70's, the trend to dual earners was irreversible. Trying to go back to "Leave it to Beaver" days is not in the cards. So tell me - how would you go about "trying to raise the birth rates"? Quote Back to Basics
Keepitsimple Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 Lots of words being thrown about but if we don't want Canada to inevitably shrink there's really only two ways to do it - and a combination of them would logically follow: 1) Bring people in - immigration 2) Increase the birth rate How we do that is open for debate but there are no other solutions. Alternately, you can ignore it and let Canada get older and shrink - and pay the price with ever-increasing higher taxes to support an aging population - with ever-increasing lifespans. Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) No. Why would it lead you to think you need both? If the problem is a falling population due to sub-replacement birth rate, then there are many possible solutions. One is immigration to keep the population increasing. Another is to raise the birth rate. You could use a combination of the two, but either individually also works. You could also reconsider whether a constantly growing population is even necessary. Once you have all the solutions on the table, you can evaluate the pros and cons of each. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that raising immigration rates is preferable to trying to raise birth rates.The leading edge of the baby boomers are retiring NOW.It's already too late for navel gazing 'either/or' exercises on the issue of immigration and birth rate, and "either individually" does not work. The 'bulge' of the baby boom retires about 2030, and by about 2045 the overpopulation of seniors will begin to naturally abate through death. Advance planning was necessary, and still is. Obviously, a combination of increase in birth rates and immigration will help to offset these increased demands on the elder care system. The high immigration rates in the 80's helped as the children of those immigrants are now in the workforce. Immigrants who tend to have higher birth rates will help too.Xenophobic arguments against immigration are not helpful. But of course we don't want to go overboard and create another population bulge either. . Edited November 12, 2014 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 Do you have any concrete suggestions for reversing the trend in falling birth rates? The main reason is that elements of society have taken to frowning on "stay at home" Moms.Horsesh!t !!By the 1970's we were being told to reduce the birth rate to prevent another baby boom generation putting too much stress on the future elder care system, and women were being told that they should work for their own pensions to prevent the then rampant problem of elderly women living in extreme poverty in old age after the breadwinner died. . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) Horsesh!t !! By the 1970's we were being told to reduce the birth rate to prevent another baby boom generation putting too much stress on the future elder care system, and women were being told that they should work for their own pensions to prevent the then rampant problem of elderly women living in extreme poverty in old age after the breadwinner died. . If you think the feminist movement is in love with Stay at Home Moms or Real Women of Canada - then good for you. But my point stands - we are not going back to Leave to Beaver days. Edited November 12, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) You seem to be defeating your own arguments. On one hand you're saying that raising the immigration rate will not do anything No, the statisticians and demographers say it will accomplish nothing. and on the other you're saying we have to do something to encourage people to have more children. If a low birth rate is considered a problem then yes, the government ought to take steps to encourage people to have more children. Wouldn't that lead you to think that we need to do both? Given the experts say immigration would have, at best, a minimal result, and given the high costs of immigration, no, I would think that money would be better spent in encouraging a higher birth rate. Edited November 12, 2014 by Argus 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 Here is information that was buried after Argus' tantrum which shows that the current government has been worried and alarmed about the aging population for quite a few years As I've already attempted to explain to you, and which you obstinately insist on ignoring, what the government "says" is irrelevent to the numbers at hand. Yes, there is a 'bulge' in that the baby boomers are aging. But this is a transitory phenomenon anyway. And as the experts say you can't fight this with immigration, your statement that the government is worried is completely irrelevent to this discussion. 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 Hold on a second. You have posted a substantive criticism of the idea that immigration can't amend an 'aging population', because the numbers of older Canadians is too high. But low birth rate ? Birth rate isn't a problem in itself, it's low population growth that's the problem. Are you being intellectually honest here, I wonder ? Read the first cite from post 43. It specifically dealt with Quebec's low birth rate. The fact of the matter is that you'd have to bring in truly massive number of immigrants to have any substantive impact. And given the estimated cost of immigration at over $20 billion a year I would put most of that money to better purpose. No, read the article again. McDougall believed there were other benefits, clearly, so it's dishonest to say it was for 'entirely' political reasons. The economic arguments were unconvincing. Mcdougal was from downtown Toronto and an immigrant heavy riding, where there were already a ton of recent immigrants who most voted Liberal. Her real motivation, and what convinced cabinet to go with her argument, was that the Tories could get more immigrant votes. Note the beginning of the article: Despite concerns about the social and financial impact of increased immigration and doubts about the country's ability to assimilate new arrivals at the current rate, Ms McDougall will announce tomorrow that Canada will begin accepting up to 250,000 immigrants a year. Does that sound like their motivations were that increased immigration would lead to a great economic boom? Note also that it says that a commons commitee held hearings into the matter, and recommended immigration levels be retained at the then current level. Cabinet overrode that recommendation. Another part of the article: But a major study of immigration by the Economic Council of Canada questions the over-all impact. ECC economist Neil Swan told the Commons committee that his tentative results suggested that “the economic impacts of immigration are not nearly as large as the public generally perceives them to be, whether positive or negative.” He said decisions about immigration should be made on non-economic grounds. This is part and parcel of what I've been saying for some time. The government has, for many years, made feel good statements about how great immigration is at this or that, at how it helps our economy or helps with an aging population or a low birth rate. But these statements are not based on any kind of science. When you actually hear from the experts they tend to discount everything the government says. 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 Do you have any concrete suggestions for reversing the trend in falling birth rates? The main reason is that elements of society have taken to frowning on "stay at home" Moms I don't know any recent mom who was eager to get back to work. Most would have preferred to stay longer with their kids, or perhaps work part time, a few days a week. The major concern, of course, was economics. One of the issues is our culture calls for parents (which means moms) to spend A LOT of time with their kids, much more than when I was young, for example. Parents have become their kids number one entertainment centre. Anyway, the hassle of raising kids and working full time is extremely difficult on mothers. That's one of the reasons why, after going through it, they are not eager to do so again, and certainly not multiple times. I would like to see implimented a means for young mothers/fathers to work part-time hours so they have more time with their kids, but with less financial penalty. 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 Lots of words being thrown about but if we don't want Canada to inevitably shrink there's really only two ways to do it - and a combination of them would logically follow: 1) Bring people in - immigration Do you have any evidence that immigration will help with a low birth rate? I don't mean self-serving statements from politicians or the government which works for them either. I mean a reasonably unbiased statistical/demographic study. 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 The 'bulge' of the baby boom retires about 2030, and by about 2045 the overpopulation of seniors will begin to naturally abate through death. In thirty years!? I have news for you, boomers are already dying off. The first of the boomers is now almost 70. The high immigration rates in the 80's helped as the children of those immigrants are now in the workforce. The problem with that thought is that Canada's immigration is not designed to help Canada. It is designed to help the political party in power. As such, our immigrants are as likely to be in their forties and fifties as in their twenties. The average age of immigants is thus only marginally lower than the average age of native born Canadians. Immigrants who tend to have higher birth rates will help too.Xenophobic arguments against immigration are not helpful. You mean like xenophobic facts from the experts which show immigration is not going to help, or xenophobic statistics from Stats Canada showing that the average income of immigrants has been constantly declinining? Or were you unaware of the fact that immigrants who earn an average of $20,000 a year don't tend to pay any income taxes and thus aren't likely to be helping pay for retired boomers? If we actually intended immigration to make up for things like aging boomers we would have focused on younger immigrants and not let in grandpa and grandma, and would have focussed on immigrants most likely to earn high incomes and thus pay taxes. That has not been the case in forty years. 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
Keepitsimple Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 Do you have any evidence that immigration will help with a low birth rate? I don't mean self-serving statements from politicians or the government which works for them either. I mean a reasonably unbiased statistical/demographic study. No, I don't. In fact, I would think that newcomers might end up falling into the same birth-rate as the general population. Any other conclusion is likely anecdotal or aspirational. That said, if immigration is targeted at relatively young newcomers, that might buy us another generation or two of additional taxpayers to support us as the baby boomers "die off" to put it bluntly. It also puts a focus on the need to carefully ration the "family reunification" immigrant classification which typically sponsors older relatives. Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 No. Why would it lead you to think you need both? If the problem is a falling population due to sub-replacement birth rate, then there are many possible solutions. One is immigration to keep the population increasing. Another is to raise the birth rate. You could use a combination of the two, but either individually also works. You could also reconsider whether a constantly growing population is even necessary. Once you have all the solutions on the table, you can evaluate the pros and cons of each. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that raising immigration rates is preferable to trying to raise birth rates. We already spend a massive ammount of money on programs that encourage people to have children. Public healthcare, public schooling, family allowance and all kinds of other perks and benefits. At the end of the day we as a culture stopped placing a lot of value on having large families... it used to be a source of pride. Now both parents work so they can have fancy houses and cars. Its capitalism/materialism that lowers birthrates... not a shortage of government programs. And keep in mind... even if the government DID try to implement any substantial incentive to encourage Canadians to have children, the same people whining about immigration would immediately be screaming "COMMUNISM!!!!, SOCIALISM!!!". So that dog just dont hunt. Immigration is the only viable tool the government has at its disposal right now, and levels are going to increase no matter how much some people might whine about it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 that might buy us another generation or two of additional taxpayers to support us as the baby boomers "die off" to put it bluntly. Borrowers not tax payers. Its the monetary system itself that creates the drive for population growth. Thats why the banks want to increase immigration levels, and try to hit 50 million within the next couple of decades. And the problem isnt just the baby boomers and waiting for them to die off. The problem is simply that large families are not desirable in our culture. That will still be an issue well after the baby boomers are all pushing up daisies. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) So that dog just dont hunt. Immigration is the only viable tool the government has at its disposal right now, and levels are going to increase no matter how much some people might whine about it. Do YOU have any evidence immigration will help counter a low birth rate other than self-serving statements from a government you despise? I've already posted cites from researchers who say it will not. I'd like to see you post some research which says it will. Thanks in advance. Edited November 12, 2014 by Argus 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 And the problem isnt just the baby boomers and waiting for them to die off. The problem is simply that large families are not desirable in our culture. That will still be an issue well after the baby boomers are all pushing up daisies. Yet immigrants will be living in our society, so after the first generation would that not suggest they would stop having large families too? 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
dre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 The problem with that thought is that Canada's immigration is not designed to help Canada. No, its designed to keep the ponzi scheme that is our economic system up and running . It is designed to help the political party in power. Mind telling me how expanding a demographic that you only stand to get 29% of the votes from will keep a party in power? A recent poll from EKOS and iPolitics showed 35.5 per cent of non-Canadian-born voters would vote Liberal if an election were held tomorrow, while 28.9 per cent would vote Conservative. Another 21.9 per cent said they would support the NDP. The poll, which surveyed more than 4,500 Canadians via Interactive Voice Response Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 Do YOU have any evidence immigration will help counter a low birth rate other than self-serving statements from a government you despise? I've already posted cites from researchers who say it will not. I'd like to see you post some research which says it will. Thanks in advance. I dont know about your crackpot "researchers", but its really just simple math, and immigration has already been countering low birth rates. Theres 7 billion people on the planet... if the government wants to bring in enough to keep our population expanding then they could certainly do it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 I dont know about your crackpot "researchers", but its really just simple math, and immigration has already been countering low birth rates. Theres 7 billion people on the planet... if the government wants to bring in enough to keep our population expanding then they could certainly do it. Ah, I see so you have no evidence whatsoever, and as for the demographers and statisticians, well, they're all 'crackpots'. It's good to know you base your decisions on such powerfull thought processes. 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
Argus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Posted November 12, 2014 Mind telling me how expanding a demographic that you only stand to get 29% of the votes from will keep a party in power? If it's the right 29% in the right places, it's worth a lot. Besides, just because that's the hope, doesn't mean that's the reality. From the Globe report in the 80s the increase in immigration happened in large part because of the Tory hopes it would lead to increased PC support among ethnics and immigrants. That doesn't mean their hopes were rewarded. 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
dre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 Ah, I see so you have no evidence whatsoever, and as for the demographers and statisticians, well, they're all 'crackpots'. It's good to know you base your decisions on such powerfull thought processes. The evidence is that its already happening. Immigration rates have resulted in mild population increase year to year. Without immigration the population would have shrunk. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 If it's the right 29% in the right places, it's worth a lot. Besides, just because that's the hope, doesn't mean that's the reality. From the Globe report in the 80s the increase in immigration happened in large part because of the Tory hopes it would lead to increased PC support among ethnics and immigrants. That doesn't mean their hopes were rewarded. Youre hanging your hat one one decades old report, and ignoring the fact that the pressure to increase immigration is coming from "chamber of commerce" organizations, banks, etc... All across the west. Economic Council of Canada, the first detailed analysis of Canadian policy. It called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large. The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains."[17][18] In 2005 a report by the Royal Bank of Canada called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth And those are basically the type of outfits that control government policy. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Big Guy Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 The editorial in to-days Toronto Star has an interesting view on this issue. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 The editorial in to-days Toronto Star has an interesting view on this issue. If only there were a way to link to it here. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/11/11/canada_should_offer_haven_to_more_caught_in_global_refugee_crisis_editorial.html Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Keepitsimple Posted November 12, 2014 Report Posted November 12, 2014 Do YOU have any evidence immigration will help counter a low birth rate other than self-serving statements from a government you despise? I've already posted cites from researchers who say it will not. I'd like to see you post some research which says it will. Thanks in advance. Argus - I know you're a little cranky on this issue but those researchers you speak of said that 1% would not have any noticeable impact and that the necessary larger percentages are not politically palatable. Funny how the debate is going on this thread. One of the themes of the eco-nuts is that the planet has too many people - yet Western-style cultural evolution (Education and a decent living standard) has led to lower birth rates and a potentially shrinking population. We can only hope that the third-world can start to participate in their own version of the West's "success". Wishful thinking perhaps but who knows what the next 50 years might bring. But our issue in Canada is not so much is it good or bad to have immigrants and/or a growing/shrinking population - it's about the ability to support an aging population over the next 20-30 years. Quote Back to Basics
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.