Is increasing immigration by 50% to 450k too high?

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, Smallc said:

I find it funny that you're unwilling to believe that figure, but quite willing to believe the figure related to immigration.

Because unlike you I like to know what I'm talking about, so when I see something like that I investigate to find out what it's made up of, to see how they arrived at the figure.

The figure they arrived at is based on all kinds of extraneous 'costs to society' like the cost of having air pollution, as one example. As for the OECD, while they often do measurements of tax as a percentage of GDP the Fraser Institute usually talks about taxes as a measure of personal income and how much is going to government. I think you likely just saw numbers and never went beyond that.

38 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The Fraser institute has been caught more than once creating figures.

Translation: The Fraser Institute has sometimes come out with figures the Left doesn't like.

38 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Also, I myself have criticized Trudeau in cash for access, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I have never seen you take any side on any issue but the government side since Trudeau got elected.

[Smallc]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because unlike you I like to know what I'm talking about, so when I see something like that I investigate to find out what it's made up of, to see how they arrived at the figure.

The figure they arrived at is based on all kinds of extraneous 'costs to society' like the cost of having air pollution, as one example. As for the OECD, while they often do measurements of tax as a percentage of GDP the Fraser Institute usually talks about taxes as a measure of personal income and how much is going to government. I think you likely just saw numbers and never went beyond that.

Translation: The Fraser Institute has sometimes come out with figures the Left doesn't like.

I have never seen you take any side on any issue but the government side since Trudeau got elected.

In other words, you don't really know if the IMF was right about their massive outlandish figure of not (it's not like the IMF is some left wing crackpot organization), but you're sure that the Fraser institute is right with their massive outlandish figure (that's 10% of the federal budget)  because it goes with your agenda.  I tend to believe both are probably purposefully made larger, myself.

The Fraser institute says a lot of things I don't like - mostly because they're blatantly agenda driven and arrived at with flawed methodology.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

In other words, you don't really know if the IMF was right about their massive outlandish figure of not

Yes, I do, since unlike you, I actually read some descriptions on how they arrived at the figure.

The vast bulk of The Tyee’s ludicrous figure falls under the rubric of negative “externalities,” that is, societal costs presumably caused by a particular economic activity. According to the wonks at the IMF, fossil fuels are not sufficiently taxed to make up for externalities like air pollution, carbon emissions, and even traffic congestion and traffic accidents.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/imfs-imagined-34-billion-silly-stats-are-behind-claims-that-canada-subsidizes-oil-industry

 

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

 

(it's not like the IMF is some left wing crackpot organization), but you're sure that the Fraser institute is right with their massive outlandish figure (that's 10% of the federal budget)  because it goes with your agenda.

I read the Fraser Institute report. You didn't. The figure they came up with for the cost was to all of Canada at all levels, including health care and welfare spending by the provinces, education  and subsidized housing spending by municipalities, etc.

 

 

[herples]

Here is the paper the Fraser Institute is responding to: 

http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/wp/2011/WP11-08.pdf

[-TSS-]

Immigration is not a problem if there wasn't cultural relativism. That means different rules for different people because of differences in cultures. Things which would be zero tolerance for the mainstream-population but are looked through the fingers for some groups of people because of their culture.

I don't know if you have that thing going on in Canada, hopefully not, but it sure exists here in Finland. Numerous examples happening all the time. Horrible double standards adopted by the authorities.

in

[dre]

On 10/21/2016 at 9:39 AM, Argus said:

This is an absurd statement. Do you think banks grow money on a money farm somewhere in accordance with demand? The money banks have is the money they are given by depositors or earn through various other means, including interest on loans, all of which already exists in the Canadian economy.

Its funny that you would even write posts about economics when you don't even understand what money is or where it comes from. The banks don't need a money farm. They create money simply by electronically writing it into a customers account. They have almost none of the money they lend out on deposit. This is how a fractional reserve system works. If the reserve rate is 10% for example a commercial bank can lend ten dollars out for every 1 dollar they have. When they do that 9 brand new dollars are created out of thin air. But it doesn't stop there because eventually someone will deposit that money in another account at some bank, and now it can be multiplied again.

This is how almost all money is created. Its literally borrowed into existence. No new borrowers? No more money. Only 3% of our money supply was actually created by our government at the mint. The rest of it is created by commercial banks based on the borrowers promise to pay. 

Before you start drooling on yourself and blathering that I'm a conspiracy theorist, read this little primer.

 

Quote

 

Every new loan that a bank makes creates new money. While this is often hard to believe at first, it’s common knowledge to the people that manage the banking system. In March 2014, the Bank of England release a report called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy”, where they stated that:

“Commercial [i.e. high-street] banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why the banks are so hawkish on immigration. Our big banks did a study a few years ago, and they recommended we increase it with the goal of having a population of about 50 million. They are worried about the economy because our savings rates are so low, and they worry that people will eventually get so tapped stop borrowing. That's why interest rates are so low, and that's why the banks are sending you unsolicited mail begging you to take a credit card, or take out a home equity line of credit.

The truth is when you pay of a loan to the bank that money is extinguished. It disappears from existence. So if you don't have an ever increasing pool of borrowers the money supply will contract, and because economic growth is dependent on the availability of synthetic money , contraction means a recession or worse.

And THIS is why no matter how much you whine about the government will always set immigration targets around steady population growth.

Your understanding of economics is like what one would expect from an 8 year old. First you try to evaluate the economic impacts of immigration based on only direct payments to and from the government. That's a school yard laffer right there. And then you openly admit you dont know what money is... in a thread about economics.

Edited October 31, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, dre said:

Its funny that you would even write posts about economics when you don't even understand what money is or where it comes fromoney is... in a thread about economics.

Right. Okay, and do you believe in magic, too? Because everything you posted just shows you have no understanding of reality.

The phrase “banks create money” forms part of the popular discourse, but it conveys an erroneous representation of the banks’ role in the money creation process. Without the correct understanding, the misguided belief that banks create money out of nothing will continue to influence models of the financial sector and monetary policy interventions. It will also influence the scope of policies aimed at regulating banks such as Basel III and other regulations being formulated in the wake of the recent financial crisis.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/do-banks-really-create-money-out-of-thin-air/

[dre]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

Right. Okay, and do you believe in magic, too? Because everything you posted just shows you have no understanding of reality.

The phrase “banks create money” forms part of the popular discourse, but it conveys an erroneous representation of the banks’ role in the money creation process. Without the correct understanding, the misguided belief that banks create money out of nothing will continue to influence models of the financial sector and monetary policy interventions. It will also influence the scope of policies aimed at regulating banks such as Basel III and other regulations being formulated in the wake of the recent financial crisis.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/do-banks-really-create-money-out-of-thin-air/

ROFLMAO. You just posted a link that explains the same thing I did. And you did nothing at all to defend your objectively false statement that loans come from deposits and bank profits.

The fact is commercial banks created 97% of the money in existence by issuing loans.

But don't believe it from me...

Take it from the former chairman of the midland bank.

On 10/23/2016 at 2:19 PM, msj said:

I like this idea: recall $100's and $50's bills and then audit all the criminals who bring them in:

https://medium.com/@krogoff/james-s-henrys-important-early-approach-to-dealing-with-the-big-bills-problem-61a5c1274a40#.uct4lubbl

Or the former chairman of New Zealands central bank...

Quote

"The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create it.

Or the secretary of the British Treasury 

 

Quote

Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing

Or the Boston federal reserve bank...

Quote

  "When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check, 
but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."

Or any text book about macro economics or monetary theory/policy... 

Simple question... do you still want to stand by your statement that the money banks loan out comes from deposits and their own assets? Because thats not what you link says... and not what I tried to explain to you... that's not the banks say... that's not what people who manage the monetary system say... Thats not what anyone who has ever spent more than 5 minutes reading about it in their entire life says.

Maybe you should brush up a bit before you post in any more threads about economics?

[TimG]

2 hours ago, dre said:

Or any text book about macro economics or monetary theory/policy... 

If you understood the textbooks you would realize that banks create an asset (the loan) that is always balanced by a liability (the interest they have to pay on the money loaned). This means is it misleading to say banks 'create' money because it implies they get something for nothing. They don't. They take on a risk and if a loan goes bad they are fully responsible for the liability they created.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-10-25 at 3:10 PM, Argus said:

Sounds good. Unfortunately, as I've already pointed out, the Tories spent ten years trying to focus on skilled immigrants only to find the economic success of immigrants deteriorating further. Remember that we have a progressive tax system. The lower 50% of the population contributes only 4% of income taxes collected. Thus unless immigrants are quite successful then they not only are not going to ease the tax burden of retiring seniors but add to that burden. They won't even be paying for the services the government supplies to THEM, never mind help pay for seniors.

And while it's true the federal liberals will hire and promote every immigrant they can find, regardless of ability, the private sector tends to be a lot less charitable.

Do you dislike more immigration because of economic reasons or because of cultural reasons?  I'm not saying either is invalid.

You seem to dislike many immigrants in general. Why?

Edited October 31, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

14 hours ago, dre said:

ROFLMAO. You just posted a link that explains the same thing I did. And you did nothing at all to defend your objectively false statement that loans come from deposits and bank profits.

The fact is commercial banks created 97% of the money in existence by issuing loans.

But don'you post in any more threads about economics?

I feel I've spent as much time as I need to on your trolling. Your position is as defiantly inane as that of the 911 buffs or birth certificate truthers and I don't wish to waste any more time on you. If you want to discuss it further, or other theories about magic and Jewish bankers, start your own topic. This one is about immigration. 

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Do you dislike more immigration because of economic reasons or because of cultural reasons?  I'm not saying either is invalid.

You seem to dislike many immigrants in general. Why?

I have already pointed out that as someone who worked in government for some years I know that every program needs to be justified on the basis of a plan detailing why it exists, what the government expects it to accomplish, and why this is necessary. These are not mere words but thoroughly detailed with input (facts, evidence, numbers) from experts in the field. They also contain measurable guideposts along the way to determine if the program is reaching its objectives. Immigration has no such plan. There are no studies by experts detailing what levels of immigration we need or why or what that will accomplish, or how to get the best immigrants. When such studies are done by the department they are ignored, for the politicians don't run immigration to benefit Canada but to benefit themselves with ethnic voters come election time. Thus even though Immigration Canada does a study, as it did last year, showing that the most economically successful immigrants come from Europe, India and the Philippines, and the least economically successful come from the ME and China, the government is trying to increase immigration from the ME and China because those immigrants are seen to be more 'Liberal party friendly".

I am opposed to a massive and costly program which is designed principally to enhance the election chances of politicians, without benefiting Canada. I am opposed to the enormous economic costs, to the costs in terms of livability of cities (which continues to deteriorate) and in terms of an influx of people with cultures and values hostile to our own who are showing little sign of assimilating.

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

I have already pointed out that as someone who worked in government for some years I know that every program needs to be justified on the basis of a plan detailing why it exists, what the government expects it to accomplish, and why this is necessary. These are not mere words but thoroughly detailed with input (facts, evidence, numbers) from experts in the field. They also contain measurable guideposts along the way to determine if the program is reaching its objectives. Immigration has no such plan. There are no studies by experts detailing what levels of immigration we need or why or what that will accomplish, or how to get the best immigrants. When such studies are done by the department they are ignored, for the politicians don't run immigration to benefit Canada but to benefit themselves with ethnic voters come election time. Thus even though Immigration Canada does a study, as it did last year, showing that the most economically successful immigrants come from Europe, India and the Philippines, and the least economically successful come from the ME and China, the government is trying to increase immigration from the ME and China because those immigrants are seen to be more 'Liberal party friendly".

I am opposed to a massive and costly program which is designed principally to enhance the election chances of politicians, without benefiting Canada. I am opposed to the enormous economic costs, to the costs in terms of livability of cities (which continues to deteriorate) and in terms of an influx of people with cultures and values hostile to our own who are showing little sign of assimilating.

Well that's interesting.  I agree a lot of it has to do with votes.  Though not all.  We do have a shrinking population, even without the baby boomers factored in.

How aren't the least successful immigrants from Africa??

[carepov]

On 29/10/2016 at 7:45 PM, Bonam said:

Hasn't this [ why not bring immigrants?] been answered enough times on this forum?

• cost of supporting immigrants 
• lack of evidence to suggest that immigration really drives economic growth (all "evidence" is opinion only - even if it's an economist's opinion, it's still opinion). Economic growth means per-capita growth, not just the absolute size of the economy. 
• the downward pressure on wages caused by an ever-abundant supply of cheap labour
• environmental damage due to the need to constantly expand cities and land use
• social/cultural problems of bringing in large numbers of immigrants from cultures with very different ideas of rights and values, faster than they can be assimilated

 

The Wikipedia page is a good summary of these economic issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

Costs are certainly a valid reason for limiting immigration.  IMO, the Fraser Institute purposefully inflated the "fiscal burden" of immigration to drive their ideology.  The report by Javdani and Pendakur is more accurate and objective.  What I find disturbing is the fact that the costs of all classes of immigrants (economic, family and refugees) are lumped together.  If we are considering a new policy of increasing economic (skilled) immigrants, why should we be factoring in the costs of refugees?

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

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/immigration-and-the-canadian-welfare-state-2011.pdf

Conventional wisdom is that immigration increases per-capita growth in the long term.  The fact that our per-capita GDP has been growing strong relative to other OECD countries supports this claim.

Increased labour supply does create downward pressure on wages.  IMO, for Canada this is a good thing. First of all, Canadian wages are increasing for all 5 quintiles (see Stats Can).  Labour shortages can also hamper investment and growth (reduce per capita GDP).

No matter where they come from, immigrants will almost certainly be arriving from a place with a higher population density than Canada and more immigrants will increase our population density which is good for the environment and the efficiency of infrastructure.

The only significant social/cultural problems in Canada are native issues.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well that's interesting.  I agree a lot of it has to do with votes.  Though not all.  We do have a shrinking population, even without the baby boomers factored in.

Every demographics study I've seen and reposted here says that you can't address an aging population or low birth rate with immigration, especially given we place no priority on attracting younger immigrants, and have, in fact, doubled the number of immigrant seniors who come into Canada

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How aren't the least successful immigrants from Africa??

I didn't do the study and haven't seen it. The government did it and it was reported in the Toronto Star. However, an older study I have posted a number of times suggests most African immigrants don't do very well either. 

http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm

[Argus]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

  What I find disturbing is the fact that the costs of all classes of immigrants (economic, family and refugees) are lumped together.  If we are considering a new policy of increasing economic (skilled) immigrants, why should we be factoring in the costs of refugees?

You might try this, which at least gives us some idea of what immigrants earn by category.

The last chart, showing what the various immmigrants earn as a percentage of average Canadian earnings is revealing. It shows that the principal applicants under the skilled worker program earn 107 of average wages, and the principal applicant under provincial nominee programs earn 121% of average wages. Their spouses earn far less, usually 50-60% of Canadian average. Family class immigrants earn about 60% of average wages. Refugees are closer to 40% or less.

http://global-economics.ca/immigration_conservative_policies_2012.htm

2 hours ago, carepov said:

Conventional wisdom is that immigration increases per-capita growth in the long term.

That is not conventional wisdom as far as I'm aware. It might increase GDP through increasing the size of the population, but not per capita growth.

2 hours ago, carepov said:

 Increased labour supply does create downward pressure on wages.  IMO, for Canada this is a good thing.

Not if it's YOUR wages.

2 hours ago, carepov said:

No matter where they come from, immigrants will almost certainly be arriving from a place with a higher population density than Canada and more immigrants will increase our population density which is good for the environment and the efficiency of infrastructure.

An increasing population is not good for the environment nor for the liveability of our cities.

[carepov]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You might try this, which at least gives us some idea of what immigrants earn by category.

The last chart, showing what the various immmigrants earn as a percentage of average Canadian earnings is revealing. It shows that the principal applicants under the skilled worker program earn 107 of average wages, and the principal applicant under provincial nominee programs earn 121% of average wages. Their spouses earn far less, usually 50-60% of Canadian average. Family class immigrants earn about 60% of average wages. Refugees are closer to 40% or less.

http://global-economics.ca/immigration_conservative_policies_2012.htm

Very interesting link that proves my point - increasing skilled workers is very different than increasing other classes.

I disagree with the conclusion: " More new immigrants may increase aggregate GDP, but they will decrease the living standards of existing Canadian residents unless they are able to earn at least as much as other Canadians and thereby pay their pro rata share of the social programs to which they become entitled as Canadians. This is the basic fact that Canadians need to recognize. "

First, there is a great deal of spending that is not strongly linked to the size of our population, therefore bringing in more immigrants will not increase these costs:
-Servicing of existing debt
-Military spending
-Foreign Aid
-Aboriginal spending
-Science and Research
-Repairing existing infrastructure
-Old age pensions
-Costs of running the governement (senate expenses...)

Second, skilled workers and their families will use significantly less than the average Canadian of the following services:
-Health Care
-EI
-Police and correctional services

And finally, many services have marginal costs that are significantly lower costs compared to their per capita costs.  For example Canada does not need to build and operate new schools and universities just hire more teachers.

For these reasons, the fiscal break-even point is significantly lower than 100 %.

And finally, how much of this disparity between income is due to the fact that overall Canadian wages are increasing?
 

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by carepov

[Argus]

1 hour ago, carepov said:

Very interesting link that proves my point - increasing skilled workers is very different than increasing other classes.

Yes, but it also points out that their spouses earn far less, and you take the bad with the good. So while the skilled worker earns more, their spouse earns far less. The aggregate is lower than a Canadian born couple.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

Second, skilled workers and their families will use significantly less than the average Canadian of the following services:

-Health Care
-EI
-Police and correctional services

How do you figure in any of these? Again, I'll presume the skilled individual doesn't use EI/police as much, but there's no saying their families won't, or that they will use less in health care.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

And finally, many services have marginal costs that are significantly lower costs compared to their per capita costs.  For example Canada does not need to build and operate new schools and universities just hire more teachers.

The greatest costs in schooling, by far, are the personnel costs. And I don't believe a lot of universities have spare buildings standing around empty either.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

And finally, how much of this disparity between income is due to the fact that overall Canadian wages are increasing?

They're in Canada, too. Whatever increase in general wages Canadians are feeling would be felt by immigrants, as well.

[Argus]

To me, looking at the studies above as well as the one Canada Immigration did last year, the mix of immigrants should be more strongly weighted towards skilled workers, primarily from Europe, including tradesmen, with technology workers from India. It should also be weighted towards younger people, preferably in their 20s. I bet a skilled worker from the UK probably has a spouse with a lot more earning power than most of the skilled workers' spouses from Pakistan or Iran.

[carepov]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yes, but it also points out that their spouses earn far less, and you take the bad with the good. So while the skilled worker earns more, their spouse earns far less. The aggregate is lower than a Canadian born couple.

How do you figure in any of these? Again, I'll presume the skilled individual doesn't use EI/police as much, but there's no saying their families won't, or that they will use less in health care.

The greatest costs in schooling, by far, are the personnel costs. And I don't believe a lot of universities have spare buildings standing around empty either.

They're in Canada, too. Whatever increase in general wages Canadians are feeling would be felt by immigrants, as well.

The weighted average for skilled workers and their dependants is 87 % of an average Canadian's income.  This is pretty good for young workers after only 1-6 years of arriving!  What would it be for 5-10, 20-25 years?  Other studies have shown that kids of immigrants do better than the Canadian average.

Only healthy people are admitted as skilled workers - they will therefore use way less in health care.  Also they tend to be more urban and I suspect that rural/remote health care costs are significantly higher.

You are right about schooling costs, the marginal rate per student is lower than the average rate - but not by much.  Overall, I bet that as long as newcomers make about 70 % of the average Canadian wage we would come out ahead (~$30,000 per year).

Don't forget, unless we increase population growth via immigration then the percentage of Native Canadians will steadily increase - how do you feel about that?

[taxme]

On 10/27/2016 at 6:35 PM, Army Guy said:

Yes I have a close mind.....when DND returns millions and in some cases Bils back into the government where does that money go.....does it vanish....as you've said....is it used else where.....or is it declared a surplus........

It goes back into the government coffers to be used to promote more multiculturalism and to be given to the third world refugees that keep coming into Canada every year which they say runs into the billions. Your tax dollar are blown every year on useless programs and agendas that do nothing for the rest of us Canadians. We don't need any more immigrants to come here as this only creates more pressure on our roads, medical and social services system, and the environment. Canada will do just fine and survive without flooding this country with more new immigrants that are not needed. We could use a break from it all. It is a farce for anyone to try and convince Canadians that we need more immigrants. We need a moratorium on immigration. But as long as there are Canadians who keep believing the politicians and special interest groups that more immigration is needed nothing will change. Stop listening to those people and start to think about the problems that are caused by allowing more immigration. We have probably hundreds of thousands of new babies born every year in Canada, so what is with this so-called need for more immigration? Most Canadians lack any kind of logic and common sense. It would appear as though emotionalism gets in their way from thinking clearly about things like immigration and multiculturalism. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, carepov said:

The weighted average for skilled workers and their dependants is 87 % of an average Canadian's income.  This is pretty good for young workers after only 1-6 years of arriving! 

Why call them young? Most immigrants appear to be middle aged. Which also has a cost in that we expect young workers to be paying into things like pensions and health care for many decades without using them (much). That doesn't work so well when you show up in your mid forties.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

Don't forget, unless we increase population growth via immigration then the percentage of Native Canadians will steadily increase - how do you feel about that?

Fine except that we warehouse them out in the bushes where all they can do is get drunk and die young. The reserves are a disgrace, but that's another topic.

[Argus]

It would be remiss to let the announcement that the Liberals will NOT after all vastly increase immigration go by without comment. They are increasing the base level to 300k, but since Harper unilaterally increased it to 300k last year in an election year it's not really an increase.

Apparently there was opposition in cabinet to McCallum's enthusiasm for a big new increase. And to quote the Globe, despite how McCallum said everyone he met wanted more immigration there was "little enthusiasm' in polls for an increase in immigration.

Opinion polls – including in-depth polling by Mr. McCallum’s own department – consistently found little support for boosting immigration and broad support for the status quo.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-hold-immigration-level-steady-in-2017/article32600713/

[herples]

If it weren't for immigration Richmond would be much worse economically.

Edited November 2, 2016 by herples

[Smallc]

Of course, Argus leaves out that the Liberals are shifting the total towards more economic immigrants, less he present what happened as good news in any way.