31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[jacee]

That is what I said. It is not a zero sum game and some jobs are created. But at the same time the supply of workers for some job categories increases which depresses wages. So it is wrong to say immigrants are entirely beneficial. More jobs at lower wages is good from the POV of an economist with tenure but no so good to someone who makes a living in the trades which see depressed wages as a result. Elites refusing to acknowledge the harms caused by immigration is one of the reasons Trump has found people willing to vote for him.

As with free trade, immigration causes harm to some people. We should be able to talk openly about these harms without being called 'racists'.

Hmmm ... all I see from your argument is a very good case for wage controls, a living wage, so wages can't be depressed beyond a set minimum.

Problem solved.

.

[TimG]

I see from your argument is a very good case for wage controls

Wage controls? You have to be kidding. All they would do is kill off jobs. Note that I did say that immigration increases the pool of jobs but it also lowers wages. The two things are connected. Wage controls AND immigration would mean the pool of jobs would shrink even as population increases which would be bad for everyone. Edited August 10, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Hmmm ... all I see from your argument is a very good case for wage controls, a living wage, so wages can't be depressed beyond a set minimum.

Problem solved

We'll take the money out of your pension cheques.

[dre]

But there seems little debate that immigration pushes down wages for lower income workers. And what additional economic activity is produced depends on the wealth of the immigrant. A poor immigrant who needs government support because of his or her low wages is not a spur but a drain on the economy.

No that's not necessarily true. It does mean the government accumulates a bit of extra debt to support them, but its usually only temporary, and the one nice thing about giving money to poor people is that ever single penny enters the economy almost immediately. Its really economic stimulus which is why studies have found that increased immigration actually results in a growth and a healthier economy.

[dre]

Wage controls? You have to be kidding. All they would do is kill off jobs.

Wage and price control in a Keynsian economy is ALWAYS a government responsibility. Its controlled through monetary policy, interest rates, immigration, etc. Direct wage controls are not normally used, but make no mistake wages are centrally managed.

[jacee]

Ya, and the new refugee immigrants will still receive free everything and probably stay unemployed for years in one of those new housing projects while the Canadian taxpayer's pay for it all. While here in Vancouver poor people are in need of housing and have a problem trying to find a place to live. There is no problem building new homes for refugees but poor unemployed Canadians can just stay out in the cold. A win-win for refugees. For the taxpayer's and the unemployed and the poor it is a lose-lose situation for all of them. Why are there so many Canadians out there who continue to show more concern for foreign refugees who have nothing in common with us, and not for their own people? With 50,000 refugees supposedly going to come to Canada, the tax dollars lost will never be recovered by the Canadian taxpayer's. The Canadian taxpayer's will always lose billions in tax dollars when it comes to immigration. I say stop all immigration for a long while and let us all just wait and see if the sky comes tumbling down. I will bet you that it won't. Works for me.

Face it taxme:

Canada just doesn't work for you.

Time for you to emigrate.

BTW ... Where is your 'white nationalist' utopia?

.

Edited August 10, 2016 by jacee

[Argus]

No that's not necessarily true. It does mean the government accumulates a bit of extra debt to support them, but its usually only temporary, and the one nice thing about giving money to poor people is that ever single penny enters the economy almost immediately. Its really economic stimulus which is why studies have found that increased immigration actually results in a growth and a healthier economy.

The more people you add to an economy the more it grows. That certainly isn't debatable. But that doesn't mean it grows in proportion, or above proportion to the increased population. And if it doesn't then there's no actual improvement for the people who are already resident, and thus no actual reason to bring in immigrants.

When the Progressive Conservatives first proposed tripling immigration in the 1980s they also suggested it would be a boost for the economy. This from a news article at the time.

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.

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.

Of course, they did find a better reason to triple immigration. They figured all those grateful immigrants would be voting for the PCs.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

[jacee]

Wage controls? You have to be kidding. All they would do is kill off jobs. Note that I did say that immigration increases the pool of jobs but it also lowers wages. The two things are connected. Wage controls AND immigration would mean the pool of jobs would shrink even as population increases which would be bad for everyone.

People need a certain level of income to function.

Going below that just means more dysfunction.

The 'free market' isn't functioning if it can't provide a living for people.

People don't exist to serve the market: The market exists to serve the people.

So ... the free market needs a minimum living wage to make it function properly for us.

.

[TimG]

People need a certain level of income to function.

People with jobs have more income that people with no jobs. It really makes no difference how much you wish people could paid more the cold hard economics facts mean companies that are forced to pay more for workers will either hire fewer workers or go out of business.

So ... the free market needs a minimum living wage to make it function properly for us.

.

Nope. The free market needs a government safety net for people who are in trouble. The government has no business regulating wage levels in private industry. Switzerland has no minimum wage and they do fine. Why do we need one here? Edited August 10, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

The Canadian taxpayer's will always lose billions in tax dollars when it comes to immigration. I say stop all immigration for a long while and let us all just wait and see if the sky comes tumbling down. I will bet you that it won't. Works for me.

That's just a pure statement of ideological creed. None of you have even done the first bit of research on the impact of immigration on our economy, and you are ignoring most of the factors.

Like the fact that immigrants are more likely to start more businesses than Canadians. Or the fact they are on average more educated. Or the fact that so much of our economy is in the real estate and real estate services and retail and leasing sectors and they need population growth to stay healthy.

If your concern is economics stopping immigration is the absolute worst thing you could ever do, and nobody (neither conservative or liberal) is ever going to do it, because businesses and politicians understand t his stuff a little better than you do (a lot actually).

If your concern IS economic here's what makes sense. Double the amount of ECONOMIC CLASS MIGRANTS.

Adding a hundred thousand refugees based on the current class rations would increase our real GDP by 2.3 percent. The problem is it would increase our population by about 2.6 percent so GDP per capita would slightly decline. But if you doubled the number of Economic Class Migrants it would raise the average immigrant wage by about 5 percent, and not only would our GDP increase but our per capita GDP would increase as well.

I think we SHOULD do that.

Also... we should work with other countries to harmonize more certifications and stop protectionism by Canadian professionals. For example Doctors from places like India, Thailand, and South Africa are highly skilled today. But we don't recognize their credentials. And even if they ace our exams (and most of the do) to become certified to practice, they still aren't allowed to practice without a two year residency. And guess who controls the residency slots? Canadian Medical Associations. Guess who negotiates for doctor wages and salaries? Canadian medical associations. So of course they dont want foreign doctors to practice. They want to create artificial scarcity to drive up the wages of their members (and the cost of medical care along with it).

The result? Almost half of the foreign doctors in this country are driving cab. Even the ones that ace our medical exams. Meanwhile we have a chronic shortage of family physicians, and half the country gets care at walk in clinics by doctors that done even know them.

Educate yourself on all these issues. Stop pretending that the economy is a fixed size pie and new participants will mean that you get a smaller piece. Its just not true.

[cybercoma]

Ya, and the new refugee immigrants will still receive free everything and probably stay unemployed for years in one of those new housing projects while the Canadian taxpayer's pay for it all. While here in Vancouver poor people are in need of housing and have a problem trying to find a place to live. There is no problem building new homes for refugees but poor unemployed Canadians can just stay out in the cold. A win-win for refugees. For the taxpayer's and the unemployed and the poor it is a lose-lose situation for all of them. Why are there so many Canadians out there who continue to show more concern for foreign refugees who have nothing in common with us, and not for their own people? With 50,000 refugees supposedly going to come to Canada, the tax dollars lost will never be recovered by the Canadian taxpayer's. The Canadian taxpayer's will always lose billions in tax dollars when it comes to immigration. I say stop all immigration for a long while and let us all just wait and see if the sky comes tumbling down. I will bet you that it won't. Works for me.

Im surprised you're not happy that the Chinese are making Vancouver homeowners richer by making their properties worth more.

[jacee]

People with jobs have more income that people with no jobs. It really makes no difference how much you wish people could paid more the cold hard economics facts mean companies that are forced to pay more for workers will either hire fewer workers or go out of business.

Or run the business smarter, lower their profit expectation a smidgen.

Nope. The free market needs a government safety net for people who are in trouble. The government has no business regulating wage levels in private industry. Switzerland has no minimum wage and they do fine. Why do we need one here?

Because business (as described by you) is more predatory here?

Because business (according to you) expects to underpay and discard employees easily, and demands that the 'government' - ie, Canadian people - provide a safety net so you don't have to take responsibility for fair treatment of employees?

A minimum wage we have.

We need a livable minimum wage.

And we need, and we have, many responsible employers who run business in a smart and fair manner.

Perhaps you're not among them.

.

[dre]

The more people you add to an economy the more it grows. That certainly isn't debatable. But that doesn't mean it grows in proportion, or above proportion to the increased population. And if it doesn't then there's no actual improvement for the people who are already resident, and thus no actual reason to bring in immigrants.

Right now if we were to bring in 100 thousand immigrants GDP would grow by 2.3% but the population would grow by 2.6 percent. GDP goes up, but GDP per capita goes down a tiny bit. This is because new immigrants make only about 60% of what other Canadians make in wages. This is MOSTLY because theyre credentials are not recognized and they end up not working in the areas they are educated in. IF however we double the number of Economic Class migrants that would raise immigrant wages by 5 percent and now GDP per capita would be growing. And if we streamlined the approval process for foreign certification (so that doctors and lawyers are not driving taxi cabs), then the immigrant wage would go up more, and new immigrants would increase per capita GDP even more, and the level of many Canadian services would improve. Like I said we have a chronic shortage of family physicians, but we have lots of foreign doctors that have passed our medical exams but cannot practice simply because they cant get residency slots due to medical protectionism by Canadian medical associations. These kinds of things drive down immigrant wages as a group.

Anyhow the two bolded portions above are actual doable common sense ideas that would ensure immigration benefits almost everyone. I posted this as a reply to you Argus because you at least expressed an interest in making the immigration system better as opposed to TaxMe's "Lock the doors quick!!!" position.

Edited August 11, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

Or run the business smarter, lower their profit expectation a smidgen.

Spoken like some who knows nothing about running a business. Most minimum wage employers have narrow profit margins (<10%) and a high percentage of the costs is labour (>70%). So a 10% increase in labour costs can eliminate their entire profit margin (i.e. the reduction in profits is a lot more than a 'smidgen').

As for running the business smarter: if >70% of costs is labour then 'smarter' means getting rid of people and investing to make the ones that remain more productive.

We need a livable minimum wage.

People with jobs are better off than people with no jobs. Mandate excessive pay scales and the jobs will dissappear. This is not a theory. This is what is happening in places in the US where they imposed a $15 minimum.

Why do people like you insist on believing that you can get something for nothing?

Edited August 11, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

IF however we double the number of Economic Class migrants that would raise immigrant wages by 5 percent and now GDP per capita would be growing. And if we streamlined the approval process for foreign certification (so that doctors and lawyers are not driving taxi cabs), then the immigrant wage would go up more,

I am in favour of more economic class immigrants, though it isn't as simple as that. What happened after the Conservatives did this was that a lot of people came in with degrees which, even if recognized, didn't get them jobs because they had no citable experience and because their language skills were rudimentary. The higher and more complicated the job you apply for the more important your communication skills are, both written and oral. There are exceptions, as in software workers, for example but for the most part no one is going to hire a foreign professional who can't communicate in a highly articulate fashion with his employers and colleagues. I have posted studies here on this subject, I think one was from TD bank, citing lack of English as a major reason why immigrant economic prospects have been deteriorating over the past fifteen years despite there being more economic and less family class.

In the old days, immigrants who came here and wanted to be a farmer, or lumberjack, or fisherman, or brick layer didn't need to have much English, and could pick up what they did need fairly quickly. Now we're bringing in professional people who expect to work at a desk, but that requires a very high level of English (or French in Quebec).

And the Liberals have now reversed the trend to bring in more Family class and fewer Economic class anyway.

As to the recognition of foreign credentials, that too is problematic given some nations are rife with cheating and corruption (India, Pakistan and Russia come to mind). You can't always rely on someone with a degree to actually know the subject matter they are supposedly expert in.

and new immigrants would increase per capita GDP even more, and the level of many Canadian services would improve. Like I said we have a chronic shortage of family physicians, but we have lots of foreign doctors that have passed our medical exams but cannot practice simply because they cant get residency slots due to medical protectionism by Canadian medical associations. These kinds of things drive down immigrant wages as a group.

The problem of finding residencies and internships for doctors is a national issue for Canadian doctors not just foreign ones. Provincial governments have deliberately limited their number in hopes of keeping down the number of doctors thinking this would save money. In addition, a lot of hospitals have 'sold' a number of positions to foreign governments who pay them a lot of money to train one of their own nationals, who then return home.

[dre]

Spoken like some who knows nothing about running a business. Most minimum wage employers have narrow profit margins (<10%) and a high percentage of the costs is labour (>70%). So a 10% increase in labour costs can eliminate their entire profit margin (i.e. the reduction in profits is a lot more than a 'smidgen').

People with jobs are better off than people with no jobs. Mandate excessive pay scales and the jobs will dissappear. This is not a theory. This is what is happening in places in the US where they imposed a $15 minimum.

Why do people like you insist on believing that you can get something for nothing?

I dont disagree with what you said. But generally companies make staffing decisions based on predicted demand, not tax levels or wages. Unless escalating costs bring profitability down to zero at which point there's no real point in the operation continuing.

Its important to note though that allowing companies to pay lower wages than a person needs to live is a subsidy to that company. Because those workers are left needing subsidized daycare, foot, shelter, medical care, etc. The tax payer is essentially paying part of their wages, and if we didn't the companies employees would die and it would have none.

A better approach might be to increase the minimum wages, but then lower the taxes for these companies by the amount saved so that the change is revenue neutral for them, and a whole layer of bureaucracy is stripped out.

[dre]

As to the recognition of foreign credentials, that too is problematic given some nations are rife with cheating and corruption (India, Pakistan and Russia come to mind). You can't always rely on someone with a degree to actually know the subject matter they are supposedly expert in.

But India has a lot of hospitals that have passed the same accreditation standards as ours, and patient outcomes are comparable. At the very least experience working in those hospitals should be considered residency. And all these doctors have to pass our own exams in the first place. The real problem is medical protectionism. The same organizations that negotiate doctors wages control most of the certification process. Its in their interests to create scarcity because it drives up their bargaining power with each province, and wages for their members. Union functions such as wage negotiations should be completely decoupled from any control of the certification process

Since 2007 15000 new immigrant doctors have moved to Ontario and passed our exams. Only 70 of them have been given residency opportunities. And there's a chronic shortage of family physicians.

keeping down the number of doctors thinking this would save money

In NO economic model does creating artificial scarcity save money. It increases wages, and reduces the quality and availability of service.

That's like saying that having a single automotive shop in a large city would make automotive work cheaper. What would actually happen is that mechanics that worked in that shop would make millions of dollars per year, and it would cost a million dollars to have your engine timing set or get a tuneup.

[TimG]

Its important to note though that allowing companies to pay lower wages than a person needs to live is a subsidy to that company.

No it is not. Government social programs exist for the benefit of society and are independent of any employment. Saying they are 'subsidies to employers' is like saying free elementary education is a subsidy to employers or a police force is a 'subsidy to employers'. The only people being subsidized are the workers who can live a better life than they would be able to live given the market for their skills.

To illustrate this point: what would be the cost to society if companies simply closed down because they could not get workers at a price that they can afford? Seems to me that society is better off "subsidizing" workers without the skills necessary to justify high salaries.

[dre]

The only people being subsidized are the workers who can live a better life than they would be able to live given the market for their skills.

No, clearly these subsidies allow the companies to pay lower wages and sell their products for less. That is by definition a subsidy.

But you avoided the point which is why bother with any of that?. Why tax the economy extra and then have the government redistribute that money to its workers to top off their wages so that they can afford to live. Why not just let the COMPANY pay its workers enough to live, and lower their taxes in to make it revenue neutral.

[TimG]

No, clearly these subsidies allow the companies to pay lower wages and sell their products for less. That is by definition a subsidy.

It is not a subsidy if those programs would continue whether the business existed or not. Businesses pays taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure that society offers. This infrastructure includes social programs. Now if you wanted to narrow your focus to social program payments that would stop if the employer disappeared (seasonal EI for example) then you can call those specific programs a subsidy. This is not true for the majority of social spending.

Why not just let the COMPANY pay its workers enough to live, and lower their taxes in to make it revenue neutral.

Because your premise is false. The spending would continue whether the company existed or not. Therefore there is no scenario where it could be 'revenue neutral' once an employer goes out of business or cuts it work force leaving taxpayers on the hook anyways.

Wages should be set by the market. Independently of that we need to decide what level of social programs we want to pay for (which includes business taxes). Conflating the issues helps no one (except people who want an excuse to bash businesses).

Edited August 11, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Its important to note though that allowing companies to pay lower wages than a person needs to live is a subsidy to that company. Because those workers are left needing subsidized daycare, foot, shelter, medical care, etc. The tax payer is essentially paying part of their wages, and if we didn't the companies employees would die and it would have none.

This is nonsense. Companies used to pay workers a far more miserly wage without any problem getting workers and without society subsidizing those workers at all. Most of what we subsidize the poor for are unnecessary luxuries because we have decided that society cannot allow people to be poor. Our very definition of poverty was changed with this mentality in mind.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

But India has a lot of hospitals that have passed the same accreditation standards as ours, and patient outcomes are comparable.

I'd need to see evidence of that. What we don't want is incompetent doctors as in this report, which says 75% of doctors in the UK who lose their licenses due to incompetence are immigrants.

The largest number of foreign doctors struck off came from India, followed by Pakistan and Nigeria.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/661899/NHS-recruitment-crisis-three-quarters-doctors-struck-off-from-abroad

In NO economic model does creating artificial scarcity save money.

I do not disagree, but this is the model provinces have settled on. It is the provinces, not the medical associations which have limited the number of training positions in hospitals, and they have been steadfast in their refusal to fund more positions.

[cybercoma]

This is nonsense. Companies used to pay workers a far more miserly wage without any problem getting workers and without society subsidizing those workers at all.

Someone ask Argus for a source on this that accounts for not only inflation and cost of living but also all benefits including pensions and bonuses that people used to get. It's been shown over and over that the ratio between average wages and the cost of buying a home, going to university, buying a car, and payi for groceries has broadly increased. What he's saying here directly contradicts commonly cited statistics.

[TimG]

That he's saying here directly contradicts commonly cited statistics.

Don't know what stats you are looking at (US data BC will be happy): https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/100-years-of-consumer-spending/

In 1901, food and housing took up about 60 percent of people’s incomes. About 40 percent of a consumer’s income was spent on food and about 20 percent of a consumer’s income was spent on housing. 20 percent was spent on apparel while virtually nothing was spent on transportation.

...

From 2002 to 2003, food and housing together took up about 45 percent of incomes, with 13 percent on food and about 33 percent on housing. About 4 percent was spent on clothing and 22 percent on transportation.

[Argus]

Don't know what stats you are looking at (US data BC will be happy): https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/100-years-of-consumer-spending/

Not to mention you lived in a one or two room shack if you were poor, and your 'entertainment' consisted of talk, cards and sex. Now if you're poor you can still afford smokes, beer, a flat screen, a computer, cable, high speed internet, a smart phone, video games...

Edited August 11, 2016 by Argus