Trudeau on the Wrong Side of an Issue......Again!

LemonPureLeaf · February 24, 2015

The less people we let the less people their will be searching for jobs. Then instead of the employers having all the power in salary negotiation with many employers paying min wage to people. Less people mean that wages will grow and get higher. Look at Ft. McMurray Alberta. They have much less people to fill jobs and they pay $14/hr at least to work at Mcdonalds instead of min wage as in the rest of the country.

This proves that less people will equal higher wages for everyone across the board. Letting people with no skills into Canada makes no sense at all. That practice should be stopped immediately. We don't need people coming to Canada to leech off of our health care and social services systems.

Michael Hardner · February 24, 2015

The less people we let the less people their will be searching for jobs.

Spelling mistake and low knowledge of economics. It's not a zero-sum game, there are not a set number of "jobs" out there to be hired for.

guyser · February 24, 2015

We have an unemployment rate that includes thousands of people so I think we have enough people in Canada to fill those jobs.

And yet....those jobs still get posted telling you what?

...but instead a lot of family type of people including many elderly people. Those types of people aren't paying taxes at all or aren't paying enough taxes to pay for the services they are using.

What services would those be ? Ya know...for the old people we let in ? Edited February 24, 2015 by Guyser2

Argus · February 24, 2015

Complete and utter nonsense. Unless Canadians start having a lot more babies, thousands of future jobs will go unfilled, and of course we know what that does to the economy. Well unless you are blinded by bigotry of course.

I knew it wouldn't be long. You can present as many cites from learned experts stating without doubt that the effects of immigration are not what people seem to assume they are. But lacking any credible counter-argument, or the intelligence to confront their own ignorant assumptions, what some pathetic dweeb will come back with is "BIGOT!"

Gawd, I wish this site had an IQ test.

guyser · February 24, 2015

Argus, almost all the sites linked by you suggest one thing,immigration costs us yada yada...but do any of them spell out how much better we would all be if immigration would have stopped ten yrs ago?

In spite of the links, its hard to grasp that in someway the immigrant and their constant improvements in life are not part of the reason we have had a growing healthy strong economy for pretty much the last 20 years.

Argus · February 24, 2015

You are completely and utterly wrong. Without immigration somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million jobs will be unfilled in the next 5 years. In case you need some education, people with jobs pay tax. Income and sales.

A second study in less than a week has concluded that there is no labour shortage in Canada, nor is one expected to arrive in the next few decades. A study published Friday by a University of Lethbridge professor echoes results of a report by the federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Office released Tuesday — both conclude there are more than enough workers on a national basis in Canada to fill available jobs.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Study+debunks+Canadian+labour+shortage/9674478/story.html

With no evidence that any increase in immigration is necessary, Ottawa should consider holding the current immigration rate steady, and re-evaluate only when the business cycle warrants — possibly returning to the disused policy of increasing immigration rates in boom times, but lowering them during slower economic periods.

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/mcquillan-labour-shortages-final.pdf

A paper on immigration policy released in September by The Fraser Institute demonstrated that economic growth does not require increases in population (Collacott, pp. 6, 7). A study by the Economic Council of Canada found that in the past century, the fastest growth in real per capita income occurred at times when net migration was zero or even negative (Economic and Social Impacts, p. 29). In similar vein, a report issued by Health and Welfare Canada noted that, according to the OECD, there was no correlation whatsoever between population growth and economic growth in its 22 member countries Charting Canadas Future, p. 9).

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/background/research/immigration/labour-shortage/

Canada's budget watchdog says there's little evidence of serious labour shortages or a skills mismatch problem in the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/25/budget-watchdog-labour-shortage_n_5027662.html

Dire warnings of a widespread Canadian labour crisis and a “lost generation” of young workers have been overblown, according to a market analysis by TD Economics. Deputy chief economist Derek Burleton says demographic and economic shifts may be hitting young workers particularly hard, but he doesn’t believe projections of across-the-board labour shortages and skills gaps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/skills-gap-canada-labour-shortage_n_4138487.html

Edited February 24, 2015 by Argus

Argus · February 24, 2015

Argus, almost all the sites linked by you suggest one thing,immigration costs us yada yada...but do any of them spell out how much better we would all be if immigration would have stopped ten yrs ago?

You've been around here long enough to have seen the other cites I've posted on this during previous discussions, cites which show that immigrants of today are falling further and further behind in terms of wages and economic opportunities, and that because so many wind up in low-paying jobs they're actually costing us tens of billions in terms of the services which need to be provided for them vs the very small amount of taxes they pay. I believe the last report claimed that was something like $20 billion per year.

In spite of the links, its hard to grasp that in someway the immigrant and their constant improvements in life are not part of the reason we have had a growing healthy strong economy for pretty much the last 20 years.

In addition to the cites I have just put up in the post before this one you might consider the basic question of why do we want to keep getting bigger and bigger? There's no evidence getting bigger has improved our lives or has made our individual economic well-being better, and plenty of evidence it's caused a lot of trouble in terms of pollution, urban crowding and traffic, and social upheaval. It's also obviously depressed wages, particularly among lower skilled people.

If we're going to have immigration, and I haven't argued we shouldn't then the numbers ought to be based upon what Canada needs and not what political parties want to brag about in an election year. And the types of immigrants ought to also be based on what our economy needs, and ONLY, except in the case of humanitarian cases, what our economy needs.

overthere · February 24, 2015

One of your links cites a report from 2003.

Another has charts that indicate the unemployment rate dropping from 12% in 1991 steadily to holding sub 8% for all the time that we increased immirgation to 200k to 250k per year..... just a coincidence? If immigration is harmful to the economy, shouldn't that rate rise dramatically with all those new people in the workforce?

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2015

I knew it wouldn't be long. You can present as many cites from learned experts stating without doubt that the effects of immigration are not what people seem to assume they are. But lacking any credible counter-argument, or the intelligence to confront their own ignorant assumptions, what some pathetic dweeb will come back with is "BIGOT!"

Gawd, I wish this site had an IQ test.

Well it isnt just posts on this site that lead me to my conclusion, and as you know, I was by far the first to arrive at the same one. Bring on the IQ test any time.

Argus · February 24, 2015

One of your links cites a report from 2003.

Another has charts that indicate the unemployment rate dropping from 12% in 1991 steadily to holding sub 8% for all the time that we increased immirgation to 200k to 250k per year..... just a coincidence? If immigration is harmful to the economy, shouldn't that rate rise dramatically with all those new people in the workforce?

I didn't say it was harmful to the economy. I said there's no evidence it is helpful to the economy. It increases overall economic activity, but there's no evidence it helps Canadians. As the Economic Council of Canada stated, Canadians, both pro and con, have an exaggerated understanding of what effect immigration has. That is why they said increasing immigration would have to be made on the basis of non-economic reasons.

According to the Fraser Institute the cost to taxpayers is around $20 billion per year. So there definitely IS a large cost to heavy immigration, not to mention increasing crowding, pollution, and other social issues.

As to unemployment, the unemployment rate in the US has, for most of that period, been substantially lower than ours even though their immigration rate is half ours. Until the 2008 recession most of Europe had a lower unemployment rate than us despite much better benefits for the unemployed, and far lower immigration. The northern countries still have unemployment rates comparable or lower than ours, despite much lower immigration. Germany and the UK have lower unemployment rates than us, despite still being gripped by the remnants of the recession. I have seen nothing in any immigration papers or studies which equates high immigration with lower employment.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Argus

Argus · February 24, 2015

Well it isnt just posts on this site that lead me to my conclusion, and as you know, I was by far the first to arrive at the same one. Bring on the IQ test any time.

The Left has embraced wholesale immigration as an 'issue' simply because most immigrants are visible minorities. Thus, even though immigration was tripled by a Conservative, and done so to get more conservative voters, the Left generally feels any attempt at curtailing immigration is somehow an attack on visible minorities. I would suggest that if all our immigrants came from Europe the Left would have no interest in defending immigration. In fact, in the US, a lot of left wing groups, particularly organized labour, are far less supportive of immigration because they believe it lowers wages. Who supports immigration in both countries? Big business, the same people who love the Temporary Foreign Worker program. Maybe you ought to consider why that is.

Anyway, iewed on a large, economic scale, what we have is a massive program (tripled by Mulroney in order to improve his election fortunes), increased by Harper this year (in order to improve his election fortunes) which has never, to my knowledge, been supported by any legitimate demographic or economic study to determine what the numbers should be. We know it costs billions to operate. We know increasing the population increases pollution and crowding in the cities and leads to more and more farmland being paved over. But what of the benefits? It isn't hard to find columnists or government ministers making grandiose claims, but where are the studies to back any of that up?

Canada's population is now almost 35 million. In what way are Canadians better off than when it was 25 million? In what way will we be better off when it rises to 45 million? This is having a huge impact on Canada, and it's being conducted by political hacks who don't care what impact it has except on their election fortunes, since they presume new immigrants will vote for them.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Argus

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2015

The Left has embraced wholesale immigration as an 'issue' simply because most immigrants are visible minorities. Thus, even though immigration was tripled by a Conservative, and done so to get more conservative voters, the Left generally feels any attempt at curtailing immigration is somehow an attack on visible minorities. I would suggest that if all our immigrants came from Europe the Left would have no interest in defending immigration. In fact, in the US, a lot of left wing groups, particularly organized labour, are far less supportive of immigration because they believe it lowers wages. Who supports immigration in both countries? Big business, the same people who love the Temporary Foreign Worker program. Maybe you ought to consider why that is.

Anyway, iewed on a large, economic scale, what we have is a massive program (tripled by Mulroney in order to improve his election fortunes), increased by Harper this year (in order to improve his election fortunes) which has never, to my knowledge, been supported by any legitimate demographic or economic study to determine what the numbers should be. We know it costs billions to operate. We know increasing the population increases pollution and crowding in the cities and leads to more and more farmland being paved over. But what of the benefits? It isn't hard to find columnists or government ministers making grandiose claims, but where are the studies to back any of that up?

Canada's population is now almost 35 million. In what way are Canadians better off than when it was 25 million? In what way will we be better off when it rises to 45 million? This is having a huge impact on Canada, and it's being conducted by political hacks who don't care what impact it has except on their election fortunes, since they presume new immigrants will vote for them.

Most of our original immigrants did come from Europe. Thats why our population is mostly WASP. Now do you think Chinese are a visible minority, because that where most of them come from now. One reason we are better off is known as economy of scale.

eyeball · February 24, 2015

Shoulda listened to Malthus when we had the chance eh?

To late now but so long as we're here we might as well see if the Cornucopians were ever on to anything.

Argus · February 24, 2015

Most of our original immigrants did come from Europe. Thats why our population is mostly WASP. Now do you think Chinese are a visible minority, because that where most of them come from now. One reason we are better off is known as economy of scale.

Economy of scale can help, or not. After all, little countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with less than 10 million people, are better off than we are. Meanwhile, much more heavily populated countries are basket cases. And in an era of free trade, economies of scale don't really matter that much, especially given that much of our economy is still resource driven.

The point is there are drawbacks to bringing in hundreds of thousands of people every year, regardless of where they come from, drawbacks repeatedly noted by economists. What are the benefits? So far every alleged benefit has been shot down by demographers and economists. And I remind you NONE of the benefits are touted by that same group of educated professionals. They're touted by politicians who want votes, and business, which wants cheap labour.

Argus · February 24, 2015

Shoulda listened to Malthus when we had the chance eh?

To late now but so long as we're here we might as well see if the Cornucopians were ever on to anything.

Canada is still not overpopulated. But given current growth, due to immigration, we're going to reach between 40 and 63 million people over the next generation, according to stats canada.

How does this help Canadians? It'll mean bigger cities, more pollution, less farmland and forest. Why is this a good thing?

And shouldn't an extremely expensive policy which will do this be backed up by really hard core studies to determine the answers to those questions? Because it's not like we can decide afterward that it was a bad idea and we should have stayed at 35 million...

Edited February 24, 2015 by Argus

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2015

Economy of scale can help, or not. After all, little countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with less than 10 million people, are better off than we are. Meanwhile, much more heavily populated countries are basket cases. And in an era of free trade, economies of scale don't really matter that much, especially given that much of our economy is still resource driven.

The point is there are drawbacks to bringing in hundreds of thousands of people every year, regardless of where they come from, drawbacks repeatedly noted by economists. What are the benefits? So far every alleged benefit has been shot down by demographers and economists. And I remind you NONE of the benefits are touted by that same group of educated professionals. They're touted by politicians who want votes, and business, which wants cheap labour.

The countries you mention have had huge oil revenues for may years, and do not have anything like the area of Canada. Why do you think a 2 x 4 or a 6 pack costs half in the US than it does in Canada. Population density and economy of scale. You got something against cheap beer...

nerve · February 25, 2015

Government needs to but out and stop being cultural police. We don't need communism and socialist secret police state in Canada. Kick Beria out of office!

Culture should be freely expressed in Canada.

If it don't criminalize people, real crimes, government and the courts should butt out and shut up.

If you want to I'd people use biometrics like fingerprints.

Edited February 25, 2015 by nerve

Argus · February 25, 2015

The countries you mention have had huge oil revenues for may years,

Nope. Canada has more oil revenue than any of them. Germany has no oil revenue nor does Finland or Sweden

and do not have anything like the area of Canada. Why do you think a 2 x 4 or a 6 pack costs half in the US than it does in Canada.

It's not taxed as heavily. And if you're in Ontario, the cost is even higher, almost 30% higher than in Quebec, due to the monopoly of the "beer store".

On Guard for Thee · February 25, 2015

Nope. Canada has more oil revenue than any of them. Germany has no oil revenue nor does Finland or Sweden

It's not taxed as heavily. And if you're in Ontario, the cost is even higher, almost 30% higher than in Quebec, due to the monopoly of the "beer store".

Fairly simple equation I think, if you have ten times the buying power spread across the same size land mass, you can sell a lot more boards and beers and do it cheaper if for nothing else than shipping costs.

PIK · February 25, 2015

So why is the LCBO not using its power to get us a better price. You want to explain that.

On Guard for Thee · February 25, 2015

So why is the LCBO not using its power to get us a better price. You want to explain that.

How do you know they are not...

LemonPureLeaf · February 25, 2015

How do you know they are not...

Because the price of booze in the States is a fraction of what it is here. They are paying their people over $25 an hour to stock shelves and play cashier...outrageous. Put booze into the corner shops.

Edited February 25, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf

PIK · February 25, 2015

Because it was reported . If I can explain this, it goes like this. LCBO want to sell something, the price it by how many points they want. Lets say they want to sell it at $2. they want to make 50 pts ,so that makes the price a dollar. They will pay a dollar for it ,even if they could buy it for 80cents. It is weird.