Canadian Immigration

[WestCoastRunner]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Good point.  Make sure there's enough fpr the next thirty years or so.  After that, who cares?

An immature response. What do you think about this when you are gone and your children are ready to retire? 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, WestCoastRunner said:

An immature response. What do you think about this when you are gone and your children are ready to retire? 

It has become common in public discussion to assert that immigration can reverse the aging trends in American society and infuse the Social Security system with new revenue. A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds this is not the case. The study, based on an analysis of Census Bureau and Social Security Administration data, finds that the age and fertility differences with natives, though real, simply are not large enough to significantly change the nation's age structure, either now or in the future.

Immigration is a ponzi scheme and cannot work to slow an aging population.

The first of these further scenarios, scenario 5, looks at the level of immigration required to keep the old-age dependency ratio at 20 percent if immigrants have their current age distribution. The required increase is immediate and colossal: immigration would rise to 2.5 percent of the population by 2010, 4.4 percent of the population by 2012 and 4.7 percent by 2020 (at which point Canada's population would be 56.6 million and immigration 2.6 million). After 2020, the dynamics of reproduction and aging among the newly arrived immigrants reduce the required inflow to about 2 percent of the population in 2040; then it rises again, surpassing 4 percent of the population by 2050. In this scenario, Canada's population in 2050 would stand at 165.4 million and immigration would be above 7 million a year.

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/11/folly-of-immigrants-as-baby-substitutes.html

[WestCoastRunner]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

It has become common in public discussion to assert that immigration can reverse the aging trends in American society and infuse the Social Security system with new revenue. A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds this is not the case. The study, based on an analysis of Census Bureau and Social Security Administration data, finds that the age and fertility differences with natives, though real, simply are not large enough to significantly change the nation's age structure, either now or in the future.

Immigration is a ponzi scheme and cannot work to slow an aging population.

The first of these further scenarios, scenario 5, looks at the level of immigration required to keep the old-age dependency ratio at 20 percent if immigrants have their current age distribution. The required increase is immediate and colossal: immigration would rise to 2.5 percent of the population by 2010, 4.4 percent of the population by 2012 and 4.7 percent by 2020 (at which point Canada's population would be 56.6 million and immigration 2.6 million). After 2020, the dynamics of reproduction and aging among the newly arrived immigrants reduce the required inflow to about 2 percent of the population in 2040; then it rises again, surpassing 4 percent of the population by 2050. In this scenario, Canada's population in 2050 would stand at 165.4 million and immigration would be above 7 million a year.

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/11/folly-of-immigrants-as-baby-substitutes.html

Sorry Argus. I don't trust your sources. They are usually extreme right wing. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

An immature response. What do you think about this when you are gone and your children are ready to retire? 

I'm an immature poster, what can I say?  By the time my kids will need it, the pension will be the least of their worries.  Think "Walking Dead", but without the zombies.

Welcome back, by the way.

Edited May 10, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Sorry Argus. I don't trust your sources. They are usually extreme right wing. 

If you consider 'extreme right wing' to be anything left of the Liberal party I suppose that would be an accurate statement. Most people wouldn't use the term for the Rand Institute or the Fraser Institute, or the CD Howe institute, however. In fact, no one would.

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/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/backgrounder_96.pdf

Edited May 10, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

As for labour shortages... More "extreme right wing" cites from the TD bank and the Unviersity of Lethbridge! Eeek!

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

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

Edited May 10, 2017 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

As for labour shortages... More "extreme right wing" cites from the TD bank and the Unviersity of Lethbridge! Eeek!

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

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

Right. That's why we have a very difficult time finding skilled it workers and unskilled workers have no problem finding work. What planet do you live on? 

[Argus]

Just now, WestCoastRunner said:

Right. That's why we have a very difficult time finding skilled it workers and unskilled workers have no problem finding work. What planet do you live on? 

This one. Where are you calling in from? There is no shortage of workers, and your believe that unskilled workers have no problem finding work is frankly, ludicrous.

I never anticipated it would be this difficult to secure short term employment, let alone establish a career. I had no problem in my early 20s, but since turning 30 no one has responded to any of my applications! I can’t even get a job waitressing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/geny-millennial-employment-jobs-canada/article34867183/

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

This one. Where are you calling in from? There is no shortage of workers, and your believe that unskilled workers have no problem finding work is frankly, ludicrous.

I never anticipated it would be this difficult to secure short term employment, let alone establish a career. I had no problem in my early 20s, but since turning 30 no one has responded to any of my applications! I can’t even get a job waitressing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/geny-millennial-employment-jobs-canada/article34867183/

Check out the west coast. 

[Omni]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

Immigration is a ponzi scheme and cannot work to slow an aging population.

There are basically two ways young people will arrive in this country, either by birth or by plane. The first option is falling behind. It's fairly simple Argus.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Omni said:

There are basically two ways young people will arrive in this country, either by birth or by plane. The first option is falling behind. It's fairly simple Argus.

And so, given that we cannot achieve what we want through the latter, then we need to look into encouraging the former. Something this government has made no efforts at (nor the previous governments). 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

And so, given that we cannot achieve what we want through the latter, then we need to look into encouraging the former. Something this government has made no efforts at (nor the previous governments). 

Except we are achieving what we want through the latter. People won't likely start having babies until they are more confident about the economy.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Except we are achieving what we want through the latter. People won't likely start having babies until they are more confident about the economy.

You didn't read the cites? We cannot achieve what we want through immigration. To even attempt to do so would essentially mean replacing our native population with foreigners. The economy is not why people aren't having babies. If that were the case then the poor would be having almost no babies, and the rich would have families of ten. Yet it's more likely to be the reverse. People worth tens of millions tend to have one or two kids.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

You didn't read the cites? We cannot achieve what we want through immigration. To even attempt to do so would essentially mean replacing our native population with foreigners. The economy is not why people aren't having babies. If that were the case then the poor would be having almost no babies, and the rich would have families of ten. Yet it's more likely to be the reverse. People worth tens of millions tend to have one or two kids.

Here's a cite you should read.

http://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html

[DogOnPorch]

The use of birth control has pretty much allowed Western women to choose when to have a child rather than any ol' time hubby gets horny.

The money spent on mass replacement of our population could be spent on baby bonuses for young couples. Make it easier to have kids...not harder.

[Hydraboss]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Here's a cite you should read.

http://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html

A site owned by..... guess who

Quote

Our law firm is focused on getting clients to Canada in the shortest possible time through a variety of avenues, including finding work in Canada.

Real unbiased there

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

A site owned by..... guess who

Real unbiased there

The information comes from the Conference Board of Canada in case you didn't bother to notice.

[carepov]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

I was wondering the other day, in a conversation with a friend, why we have immigration. It seems to me that those who support immigration do so for the following reasons:

It's good for the economy.

It's because of our aging population.

It's because of our declining birthrate

It's because of an impending skills shortage

I can understand why people would believe these. The political parties have been parroting these themes for decades, and the media has been repeating them ad nauseum. But they are demonstrably untrue. So would anyone else care to posit an additional reason why we have such massive and expensive immigration?

Immigration is a net positive top our economy and our standard of living.  Here are three sources:

"“immigration produces net economic gains for domestic residents, for several reasons.”"

"that immigration increases employment in the destination countries in the North one for one, implying no crowding-out of natives. This result implies that immigration increases the total GDP of the receiving country without affecting average wages or labor productivity"

"Countries could also benefit from immigration through its effect on international trade. An important channel through which immigrants influence international trade is the knowledge they have of their home economies, as well as expertise, linguistic skills and personal connections with their home country which facilitates the international trade. International Trade accounts for 36% of the Canadian GDP and plays an important role in Canadian economy. A study by Head and Ries (1998) suggest that “immigration has a significant positive relationship with Canadian bilateral trade.”” "

http://www.sfu.ca/~pendakur/Fiscal Effects of Immigration_V5.pdf

"“Does [immigration]have a positive impact? The answer is probably yes,” said University of Toronto economist Peter Dungan. "

"Studies show that immigration can also foster innovation. A Conference Board of Canada study found immigrants make up 35 per cent of university research chairs in Canada, much higher than their 20 per cent share of the population...

The same study argued that immigration has a significant impact on Canadian trade links. It proposed that a 1-per-cent increase in immigration from a specific country would lead to a 0.1-per-cent increase in the value of Canadian exports, largely as a result of the international networks that immigrants bring with them. They also bring with them a desire for goods from their home markets, which would contribute to a 0.2-per-cent rise in the value of imports, and a more interesting and varied market for all consumers."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-immigrants-affect-the-economy-weighing-the-benefits-and-costs/article4106049/

"A growing economy in the period ahead will require full realization of the untapped potential of Canadians of working age as well as raising immigration targets to between 300,000 and 400,000 new immigrants per year."

http://www.rbc.com/diversity/pdf/diversityAdvantage.pdf

 

[Argus]

23 hours ago, Omni said:

Here's a cite you should read.

http://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html

You realize that if business had its way we'd be taking in ten or twenty million people a year, right? Business doesn't care about anything but how many clients it has. And if a substantial number of those newcomers are on welfare, well so what? Business continues to bribe government to lower its taxes so the responsibility for paying for them all won't be theirs.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

You realize that if business had its way we'd be taking in ten or twenty million people a year, right? Business doesn't care about anything but how many clients it has. 

It's not only businesses that pay taxes, a lot more is paid by working people. If you want to keep your OAP we'll need more people on the payrolls.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, carepov said:

Immigration is a net positive top our economy and our standard of living.  Here are three sources:

"“immigration produces net economic gains for domestic residents, for several reasons.”"

"that immigration increases employment in the destination countries in the North one for one, implying no crowding-out of natives. This result implies that immigration increases the total GDP of the receiving country without affecting average wages or labor productivity"

So in the words of someone who is a proponent of immigration, there is no real gain to Canadians. As I have said repeatedly. It's like inviting more people to dinner who bring their own food. Yes, there's a bigger supply of food. But there's more people to eat it. Result no net gain.

20 hours ago, carepov said:

"Countries could also benefit from immigration through its effect on international trade. An important channel through which immigrants influence international trade is the knowledge they have of their home economies, as well as expertise, linguistic skills and personal connections with their home country which facilitates the international trade. International Trade accounts for 36% of the Canadian GDP and plays an important role in Canadian economy. A study by Head and Ries (1998) suggest that “immigration has a significant positive relationship with Canadian bilateral trade.”” "

Except almost all of Canada's trade is with western countries. The largest suppliers of immigrants are poor third world countries which have little ability to purchase goods from Canada. China is also a major immigrant producing country, and it puts strong, and often illegal trade barriers in the path of any exports other than raw resources.

20 hours ago, carepov said:

http://www.sfu.ca/~pendakur/Fiscal Effects of Immigration_V5.pdf

"“Does [immigration]have a positive impact? The answer is probably yes,” said University of Toronto economist Peter Dungan. "

Oh, there's a resounding vote of support. "Probably yes.".

20 hours ago, carepov said:

"Studies show that immigration can also foster innovation. A Conference Board of Canada study found immigrants make up 35 per cent of university research chairs in Canada, much higher than their 20 per cent share of the population...

That suggests those positions would be empty without immigrants going into them. Further, given the strong and increasing demand for affirmative action in hiring minorities, which is particularly strong at universities, it's quite likely some or even many of those were hired only because they were members of visible minorities.

20 hours ago, carepov said:

The same study argued that immigration has a significant impact on Canadian trade links. It proposed that a 1-per-cent increase in immigration from a specific country would lead to a 0.1-per-cent increase in the value of Canadian exports, largely as a result of the international networks that immigrants bring with them.

As I said above, our trade is with the west. Poor third world countries don't buy much from Canada because they have very little money. So if this is truly a contention of the experts we ought to be relocating our immigration streams to Europe, rather than taking so many people from poor middle east and African countries. European immigrants also perform better, economically, and their values are closer to ours.

20 hours ago, carepov said:

"A growing economy in the period ahead will require full realization of the untapped potential of Canadians of working age as well as raising immigration targets to between 300,000 and 400,000 new immigrants per year."

What do you think the untapped potential is of all those immigrants filling our public housing units? What is the untapped potential of someone with no recognized educational credentials, no compatible job skills, and no language skills? Does Canada really need more unskilled labour? According to multiple reports over the last few decades the economic success rates of immigrants have been steadily deteriorating as the gap between Canada's high tech, high communications economy and the comparatively low tech and backward economies of our main immigrant source countries grows wider.

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, Omni said:

It's not only businesses that pay taxes, a lot more is paid by working people. If you want to keep your OAP we'll need more people on the payrolls.

Except that the lower 50% of Canadians pay just 4% of income taxes, and the lower 30% pays nothing. I doubt the majority of our third world immigrants have jobs which earn enough, especially if they have multiple children and non-working wives, to pay any income taxes. That's why the Fraser Institute found that immigration was costing us tens of billions of dollars every year.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Except that the lower 50% of Canadians pay just 4% of income taxes, and the lower 30% pays nothing. I doubt the majority of our third world immigrants have jobs which earn enough, especially if they have multiple children and non-working wives, to pay any income taxes. That's why the Fraser Institute found that immigration was costing us tens of billions of dollars every year.

I think you may be confusing immigrants with refugees. Many immigrants are welcomed to Canada because they have job skills that are needed, and those are the things that are currently screened for, not wasting time and money asking, "do you like to beat your wife" and such nonsense. And I think we already wet through showing the bias of your Fraser Institute report.

[Argus]

How many? Where from? Does large-scale immigration really benefit the country economically? Will an increasingly diverse population that maintains deep loyalties elsewhere share much in common, historically and culturally, beyond the satisfaction of living in a good place?

Such questions are not asked, says University of Ottawa economist Gilles Paquet, because the country’s political, social and media elites maintain a tacit “conspiracy of silence” about immigration even though it is “the one single issue that will determine Canadian politics for the next 10 years and more.”

For decades, says Paquet, Canada’s opinion makers have been instrumental in generating a “manufactured consensus” that sustains public support of high immigration levels. Decades of “continuous disinformation about immigration, massive government propaganda in support of the view that diversity is an absolute social good, and that all cultures are equally worthy” have, he says, persuaded Canadians that mass immigration is an unqualified good.

And given this consensus view, those who raise doubts about immigration are effectively silenced by being dismissed as xenophobic and intolerant, if not worse. “Nobody will say we should only take in immigrants according to our absorptive capacity,” Paquet says. “That’s not an unreasonable view, but if you say anything like that you risk being labelled a racist and a bigot.”

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/how-many-from-where-why-were-not-really-talking-about-immigration-in-this-campaign

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

I think you may be confusing immigrants with refugees. Many immigrants are welcomed to Canada because they have job skills that are needed,

Very few of our immigrants have any real job skills. This year the government plans to take about 172,000 people under this category, but under 60,000 of them are the principal applicants. The remainder are spouses and family. Thus only about 20% of actual immigrants to Canada are 'skilled'. And, of course, the government sucks at deciding what 'skilled' means in terms of Canada's job market. Many immigrants with masters degrees can't find work because they lack the high level of language skills needed to obtain work at that level. Or they're working as shop clerks or taxi drivers. Others have no comparable job skills AND few language skills.

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

and those are the things that are currently screened for, not wasting time and money asking, "do you like to beat your wife" and such nonsense. And I think we already wet through showing the bias of your Fraser Institute report.

The only one showing bias on the Fraser Institute report is you.