Stripping citizenship.

[Argus]

BS. The Federal and Provincial governments are all tracking it, and it's hardly a secret that our population is aging.

But you do typify the Conservative response to science. If science says something you don't like, you call the scientists liars and happily hide your head in the sand.

But on this point, you are not only wrong, you are ludicrously and pathetically wrong. I mean, why would even deny that which absolutely every level of government, every statistician and every demographer knows to be true? Is it that you like looking willfully ignorant, because it's awfully hard to be charitable towards someone who proudly betrays his ignorance.

Show me. Let's hear from the demographics experts. No, I'm not the least bit interested in what politicians say, or what companies which want to put pressure on them to import more cheap labour say. I want to hear from these scientists of yours. Go ahead. I'm a cynical guy, but a numbers guy. Let's see your numbers.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Show me. Let's hear from the demographics experts. No, I'm not the least bit interested in what politicians say, or what companies which want to put pressure on them to import more cheap labour say. I want to hear from these scientists of yours. Go ahead. I dare you.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statistics-canada-seniors-1.3248295

It was all over the news a few weeks ago. I went to a demography seminar last week that dealt specifically with BC, but mentioned both Canada and pretty much every industrialized nation on the planet; populations are aging, and Canada and other advanced nations have replacement/fertility rates well below the needed 2.1 children per woman (Canada is around a 1.5 rate http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rates_e.htm)

So, you see, what you wrote is pure garbage. Are you willing to admit it, or will you continue to condemn the scientific community because they're saying something you don't like?

[ToadBrother]

StatsCan has the replacement rate at 1.61 in 2011.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/91-209-x2013001-eng.htm

So, Argus, would you care to comment now on the demographic timebomb?

[Argus]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statistics-canada-seniors-1.3248295

So, you see, what you wrote is pure garbage. Are you willing to admit it, or will you continue to condemn the scientific community because they're saying something you don't like?

So our population is aging? This is a surprise? The baby boom is getting old. But guess what, seniors as a percentage of population will drop dramatically when, uh, the boomers drop. Plus they are the richest group of seniors in world history, and many are working well past retirement age. Immigration is not going to do anything to stop an aging population anyway, especially since our government has never focused on younger immigrants so that the average age of immigrants really isn't much different from that of 'old stock' Canadians. In fact, the new government has promised to expand the number of senior immigrants!

The noted French-Canadian demographer Jacques Henripin (1988) examined the consequences of such a plan, that is, to build up the population of Quebec through high levels of immigration. His conclusion was simple. The plan would not work! His reasoning was straightforward. At the level of immigration necessary to restore population growth to past rates, the effect would be to change the composition of that which its proposers sought to protect. By the early decades of the twenty-first century, he predicted that at these levels of inflow the foreign-born arrivals would dominate the population. For example, at levels of inflow that would eliminate the fertility deficit, the population of Montreal Island by mid twenty-first century would be 60% foreign-born. It was his contention that such inflows would have a profound effect on the cultural or ethnic or language composition of the host region/country.

http://immigrationre...rsity-press.pdf

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf

Edited November 4, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

So our population is aging? This is a surprise? The baby boom is getting old. But guess what, seniors as a percentage of population will drop dramatically when, uh, the boomers drop. Plus they are the richest group of seniors in world history, and many are working well past retirement age. Immigration is not going to do anything to stop an aging population anyway, especially since our government has never focused on younger immigrants so that the average age of immigrants really isn't much different from that of 'old stock' Canadians. In fact, the new government has promised to expand the number of senior immigrants!

I'll make it really simple for you, ARgus. What is the current fertility rate in Canada, and what is the fertility rate needed for population replacement?

[Argus]

I'll make it really simple for you, ARgus. What is the current fertility rate in Canada, and what is the fertility rate needed for population replacement?

That's not simple. It's simplistic. When I grew up Canada's population was ten million less than it is now, and we seemed to get along just fine.

Further, there is the question of what kind of a future you get by pouring in foreigners from third world countries with no commitment to our culture and values, and no particular impetus to integrate. Do you preserve Canada by replacing its population with foreigners?

A far more sensible approach would be encouraging native born Canadians to have more children, as some other nations have done with some success, notably France.

Similarly, into the future, immigration in the order of 1 per cent is also not likely to have much of an impact, either over the shorter or longer term. Unlike shifts in fertility that exclusively effect numbers at the bottom of the age distribution and unlike mortality

gains that are now almost exclusively effecting numbers toward the top, shifts in overall immigration levels tend to influence numbers across all ages, and if anything, in the middle of the distribution.

http://www.canpopsoc.ca/CanPopSoc/assets/File/publications/journal/blog/blog5.pdf

A popular solution to the problem of population aging is to simply increase the rate at which we admit immigrants. This sounds reasonable: the age profile of new immigrants is generally younger than that of the existing population. But increased immigration can't do much more than make the problem slightly less bad.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/05/aging.html

Edited November 4, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

That's not simple. It's simplistic. When I grew up Canada's population was ten million less than it is now, and we seemed to get along just fine.

It is simple. We are well below replacement rate, which means our population, left to its own devices will fall. It's that simple, Argus. You can complain about migrants, you can complain about programs to incentivize having children, but at the end of the day, unless we get back up to a fertility rate of 2.1, we have a very serious demographic problem in the next thirty years. Your defense of your previous absurd proclamation is really besides the point. It takes 2.1 children per female for a population to stay at a stable rate. Full stop.

Further, there is the question of what kind of a future you get by pouring in foreigners from third world countries with no commitment to our culture and values, and no particular impetus to integrate. Do you preserve Canada by replacing its population with foreigners?

A far more sensible approach would be encouraging native born Canadians to have more children, as some other nations have done with some success, notably France.

So, maybe we should have that national daycare program and maybe we should start paying families to have kids, right?

Either that, or it's migrants. You choose.

[Argus]

It is simple. We are well below replacement rate, which means our population, left to its own devices will fall..

I can't help noticing that it seems to be you ignoring what the studies say about the very small impact even very large scale immigration will have on this.

And despite that you are clinging to the idea of pouring more immigrants into Canada with your fingernails.

[ToadBrother]

I can't help noticing that it seems to be you ignoring what the studies say about the very small impact even very large scale immigration will have on this.

And despite that you are clinging to the idea of pouring more immigrants into Canada with your fingernails.

I can't help but notice you keep ignoring that we are not actually replacing our population.

And indeed, as the seminar last week that I attended made clear, migration is a problem, largely because the pool of skilled migrants is going to be increasingly competitive as more industrialized nations try to attract the best and brightest.

The fact is that in the next thirty years we will have significant, and economically damaging labour shortages. In some areas, like British Columbia, that wave will hit even sooner, in the 2020s.

If you don't like migrants (skilled or otherwise), then I suggest we need to start heavily incentivizing childbearing, and that in the long run, a national daycare program will not only become necessary, but will probably only be a part of a much larger strategy to get birthrates up the 2.1 level. Boutique tax credits won't cut the mustard, and neither will rather marginal child benefit payments.

[Argus]

I can't help but notice you keep ignoring that we are not actually replacing our population.

Which means what? We should do this despite the high economic cost of immigration even though every study shows it's not going to make much difference?

Although higher immigration can mitigate the imminent slowing down and reversal in labour-force growth, and can certainly meet specific labour-market shortages, no conceivable amount of immigration with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences can significantly affect the coming shift in the ratio of older to working-age Canadians

https://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf

The fact is that in the next thirty years we will have significant, and economically damaging labour shortages.

Facts not demonstrated.

But the notion that Canada is facing large labour shortages in coming years “is very misleading,” said Mr. Halliwell, an economist who has studied labour market trends for 36 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/no-labour-shortage-on-horizon-study-says/article15324642/

“There is little evidence to suggest a national labour shortage exists in Canada, although there appears to be regional and sectoral pockets of labour market tightness,” the report said, identifying Saskatchewan as one of those markets. "With data in hand, we debunk the notion that Canada is facing an imminent skill crisis.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/05/13/how_the_myth_of_a_canadian_skill_shortage_was_shattered_goar.html

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

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 November 4, 2015 by Argus

[Smeelious]

This should be it's own thread. Interesting all the same

[ToadBrother]

blah blah blah

What is the current fertility rate? What is the rate needed to replace population?

You keep trying to find articles to deny what is a simple fact. We are not producing enough children to replace our population. Worse, you keep bringing up articles that don't even deal with that simplest of demographic realities. It's almost as if you still so badly want to disbelieve science, as if somehow you can argue you're way out of a simple demographic truth. The articles you quote don't even deal with what I'm saying.

[Argus]

What is the current fertility rate? What is the rate needed to replace population?

You keep trying to find articles to deny what is a simple fact. We are not producing enough children to replace our population.

I've posted article after article from demographics and labour experts showing that your extremely expensive proposed solution is all-but useless. And your entire response to it is to ignore it. I've posted multiple articles to show you your claim of an impending labour shortage is nonsense, and again, your response is to ignore it. You have no interest in the facts of the case. None. Like moist Liberals, you don't care about science when it counters your own innate biases.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

I've posted article after article from demographics and labour experts showing that your extremely expensive proposed solution is all-but useless. And your entire response to it is to ignore it. I've posted multiple articles to show you your claim of an impending labour shortage is nonsense, and again, your response is to ignore it. You have no interest in the facts of the case. None. Like moist Liberals, you don't care about science when it counters your own innate biases.

I'm ignoring your citations because they have nothing to do with the crux of the problem.

Again, I ask. What is the current replacement rate, and what is the required replacement rate to maintain current population levels?

It's you that has no interest in anything other than your tiresome anti-immigrant agenda.

[Argus]

I'm ignoring your citations because they have nothing to do with the crux of the problem.

Sorry? Multiple citations which says immigration is not the solution and will have only a minor impact on an aging population have nothing to do with the problem? Immigration is your proposed solution, and your attitude is that "Well, it doesn't matter if it will work". Have I got that right?

I don't believe I've denied we have an aging population. What I've said is that immigration is not going to have much of an impact. And you've got nothing to come back with but a dogged insistence on talking about the number rate as if it's a magical formula? Seriously?

[ToadBrother]

Sorry? Multiple citations which says immigration is not the solution and will have only a minor impact on an aging population have nothing to do with the problem? Immigration is your proposed solution, and your attitude is that "Well, it doesn't matter if it will work". Have I got that right?

I don't believe I've denied we have an aging population. What I've said is that immigration is not going to have much of an impact. And you've got nothing to come back with but a dogged insistence on talking about the number rate as if it's a magical formula? Seriously?

I never said immigration was the whole solution, but it's a part of it. As is internal migration (BC has signed a deal with at least one Atlantic province to encourage people to move to BC's healthier labour market), getting more historically undermployed groups (First Nations, disabled, people on income assistance), with the hope that at least in the medium term labour market needs can be met.

In the end, however, we will need to encourage higher birth rates and probably open the door to immigration of low skilled immigrants, otherwise our population will shrink, and the tax base will recede and the burden of taxation will fall on a shrinking group.

[Argus]

In the end, however, we will need to encourage higher birth rates and probably open the door to immigration of low skilled immigrants, otherwise our population will shrink, and the tax base will recede and the burden of taxation will fall on a shrinking group.

I've already shown you there are no foreseeable labour shortages. The Fraser Institute's study pegs that cost of immigration at over $21 billion per year. And bringing low skill immigrants only adds to the burden on our economy we already have from low skilled individuals, who, I remind you, are not really part of the tax base anyway given the progressive nature of taxation here. The bottom 50% of the population is responsible for just 4% of income taxes.

[ToadBrother]

I've already shown you there are no foreseeable labour shortages. The Fraser Institute's study pegs that cost of immigration at over $21 billion per year. And bringing low skill immigrants only adds to the burden on our economy we already have from low skilled individuals, who, I remind you, are not really part of the tax base anyway given the progressive nature of taxation here. The bottom 50% of the population is responsible for just 4% of income taxes.

You don't think a 1.6 replacement rate isn't going to lead to labour shortages within a couple of decades?

Again, I will remind you. To maintain population at a stable level requires a fertility rate of 2.1. We are at 1.6. No matter how you and the Libertarians at the Fraser Institute try to spin it, within twenty to thirty years, we are going to see a massive drop off in the labour pool. You can't deny it. It's simple mathematics.

[marcus]

There is this thing on the right which demands that emotions rule intellect, that excuses be found to justify bigotry and cruelty, that facts be disregarded in favour of myth and hyperbole. Mind you, when their arguments are demonstrated to be false, they blame anything but their own flawed reasoning. It's a weird sort of determination to find something - anything - to prove they are the victims, even when they occupy the most powerful and privileged position in society.

Christianity is also a religion of peace. I wonder how the victims of abortion clinic bombings/shootings feel about the peace Christians offer them? Or the victims of the residential schools and the paedophile priests? Or the people in other countries being bombed by countries that claim Christianity as their predominant religion, and the one from which they claim to find their values?

What I don't excuse is hatred, racism and bigotry and all that flows from it - which includes murderers whether they're terrorists or some white kid with first world problems deciding a gun was the way to deal with it.

This is an important post.

There is a reason why no one, on the so-called right, is replying to the post. It's because the post lays down exactly what's wrong with the way arguments by the 'scared of Muslims group' communicates their so-called logic in order to feed the hatred and bigotry.

[Guest]

This is an important post.

There is a reason why no one, on the so-called right, is replying to the post. It's because the post lays down exactly what's wrong with the way arguments by the 'scared of Muslims group' communicates their so-called logic in order to feed the hatred and bigotry.

I'll reply to it, if you want. (Even though I'm not really on the right)

It needs some sort of question though. It's more of a statement than a question.

How about this just to start discussion: What is this statement, from the above quote, saying about Christianity, exactly, and how does it relate to the general view (on here, usually held by those your post, I think, is addressing) of radical Islam? (because surely, this refers to radical Christianity)

Christianity is also a religion of peace. I wonder how the victims of abortion clinic bombings/shootings feel about the peace Christians offer them? Or the victims of the residential schools and the paedophile priests? Or the people in other countries being bombed by countries that claim Christianity as their predominant religion, and the one from which they claim to find their values?

Edited November 5, 2015 by bcsapper

[marcus]

I'll reply to it, if you want. (Even though I'm not really on the right)

It needs some sort of question though. It's more of a statement than a question.

How about this just to start discussion: What is this statement, from the above quote, saying about Christianity, exactly, and how does it relate to the general view (on here, usually held by those your post, I think, is addressing) of radical Islam? (because surely, this refers to radical Christianity)

Christianity is also a religion of peace. I wonder how the victims of abortion clinic bombings/shootings feel about the peace Christians offer them? Or the victims of the residential schools and the paedophile priests? Or the people in other countries being bombed by countries that claim Christianity as their predominant religion, and the one from which they claim to find their values?

He was referring to the usual generalization, stereotypes and condescending comments made by some posters on here who like to paint a whole group of people with one brush stroke. Where they refer to the actions of a few Muslim groups who engage in terrorism, and then, with an eye roll, repeat "'religion of peace', shhhyah! whatever!".

But it was mostly his first paragraph that caught my eye. Which I feel describes the situation and the approach of, who I think are bigots, quite well:

There is this thing on the right which demands that emotions rule intellect, that excuses be found to justify bigotry and cruelty, that facts be disregarded in favour of myth and hyperbole. Mind you, when their arguments are demonstrated to be false, they blame anything but their own flawed reasoning. It's a weird sort of determination to find something - anything - to prove they are the victims, even when they occupy the most powerful and privileged position in society.

[Argus]

You don't think a 1.6 replacement rate isn't going to lead to labour shortages within a couple of decades?

Styles, fashions and economics change over a couple of decades. I don't know what will happen in 20 years. I do know, based on the academic literature which you continue to ignore ,that immigration is not going to make much difference, and that it comes with a hefty cost to the economy (according to Fraser Institute)

Again, I will remind you. To maintain population at a stable level requires a fertility rate of 2.1.

Then maybe we should be working on something to increase the birth rate, like the French are, instead of, as you seem to be advocating, embracing immigration as the solution despite all the academic studies which say it is not. What is your Liberal government advocating to address this issue? Nothing, so far as I can see. So clearly they don't share your concern.

[Argus]

This is an important post.

There is a reason why no one, on the so-called right, is replying to the post.

Because it was a confused, disjointed, barely literate polemic of no substance or importance?

It's because the post lays down exactly what's wrong with the way arguments by the 'scared of Muslims group' communicates their so-called logic in order to feed the hatred and bigotry.

You mean we should embrace violent religious fanaticism and misogyny the way you do?

[Argus]

was referring to the usual generalization, stereotypes and condescending comments made by some posters on here who like to paint a whole group of people with one brush stroke.

When there are 25,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam in ten years it's awfully hard not to roll your eyes at the 'religion of peace'.

When you read Pew Research polls which show hundreds of millions of Muslims support execution for apostasy and blasphemy it's a little hard to grant the idea that we're only dealing with an occasional fanatic.

When you know about the state of violently imposed serfdom of the female gender in ALL Muslim nations it's rather difficult to consider the followers of that religion as being in any way enlightened.

[Michael Hardner]

When you read Pew Research polls which show hundreds of millions of Muslims support ...

Did you ever respond to my post where I showed American attitudes to be remarkably middle-of-the-pack when compared with Muslim nations on the question of religion-and-state separation ?