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

[Smallc]

The military doesn't grow the economy.

On the other side, we probably spend too much money on healthcare.  Others spend less and get better results. 

Infrastructure is something we need to spend a lot of money on, and I have been a proponent of that for years.

I don't know what you're talking about with the CPP.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Smallc

[Bonam]

On 11/12/2016 at 6:00 PM, Smallc said:

Well, if you'd rather use their model - growth through massive government debt (230% of GDP) all the power to you, I guess?

The point is that, contrary to your claims, there are other options to consider besides population growth to fuel a functioning economy. Japan is but one example, and there is no reason to assume its debt is related to a lack of immigration. Many nations will be grappling with the problem of a stagnant or declining population in the years to come, and each will find their own solutions. The world's population is going to reach a plateau, but the world will not end when it does.

Instead of vainly scrambling to scoop up people, depriving developing nations of their few most promising individuals, and tripping over ourselves to bulldoze Canada's pristine wilderness to make room for more urban sprawl, we should be looking to become the leaders in developing the economy of the future which will prosper with a stable population. 

There is room for some immigration in Canada, and I support and believe in the ability of people to be able to move around the world (as I myself have done several times) and not be locked in their country of birth, but there is no reason to continue apace the current breakneck rate of immigration to Canada, let alone raise it even higher. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-11-10 at 2:53 PM, Bonam said:

No. It's coincided with growth in North America. The primary driver of economic growth in North America over the past ~150 years has been productivity growth (that is, technological innovation). 

I'll bet a major driver of economic growth in Canada and the US over the last 30 years has been the big increase in household/personal, federal, and provincial/state debt.  I'll bet it's been a big driver in Japan's economy too. 

[msj]

1) Germany, with 80 million people, fits into Alberta, which has about 4 million. So spare us the BS of urban sprawl is bad nonsense. 

2) When the  US may become 450 million by 2100 it is ridiculous for Canada to remain at 36 million. We should probably aim for 100 million which means net pop growth of, gasp, 1.02% per year.  

 

[Bonam]

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

I'll bet a major driver of economic growth in Canada and the US over the last 30 years has been the big increase in household/personal, federal, and provincial/state debt.  I'll bet it's been a big driver in Japan's economy too. 

In the last 30 years (that is, counting from 1986 to today), the overwhelming driver of worldwide growth has been the computer/internet revolution. All other factors pale to complete insignificance in comparison. 

[msj]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'll bet a major driver of economic growth in Canada and the US over the last 30 years has been the big increase in household/personal, federal, and provincial/state debt.  I'll bet it's been a big driver in Japan's economy too. 

Gasp! 

You think that when debt goes up so do asset values and other economic values? 

Shocking! 

[Bonam]

17 minutes ago, msj said:

1) Germany, with 80 million people, fits into Alberta, which has about 4 million. So spare us the BS of urban sprawl is bad nonsense. 

2) When the  US may become 450 million by 2100 it is ridiculous for Canada to remain at 36 million. We should probably aim for 100 million which means net pop growth of, gasp, 1.02% per year.  

1) And Bangladesh has double the population of Germany with less than half the land area. Should we all strive to be Bangladesh? And no, I won't spare the urban sprawl "nonsense". Take a look at how the world looks like:

In the developed world, Canada is one of the few places where you can get away from the lights. In densely populated countries, you have a sea of humans, with islands of protected parks or wild areas. In Canada, we have a pristine natural ecosystem with islands of human civilization. That is worth preserving, rather than blithely eradicating in some social-economic experiment. 

2) Why are you comparing the population of Canada to that of the US? And good luck predicting anything in 2100. There is only one thing that can be predicted about 2100: that every prediction someone makes today will almost certainly be wrong. What could you have predicted in 1916 about the year 2000?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Bonam

[?Impact]

On 11/10/2016 at 1:42 PM, Army Guy said:

And yet according to this site, Japan is doing better than Canada when it comes to growth, and yet they have a restrictive immigration policy......how do you explain that....

 

As carepov pointed out, you are looking at different scales for Canada and Japan. If you look at 10years, the trading economics site appears to align both scales (probably because there is comparable data for both countries during that time period). Go to the site you originally linked to with Japan GDP growth rate, select 10 years, and then compare to Canada GDP growth rate. I would say that Canada has a slight advantage when you do that direct comparison, although there are short time periods where Japan does beat us.

[Smallc]

But again, Japan owes more than twice the value of their economy in government debt.  Is that really a better way?  Their domestic economy is slumping as we speak, the same as ours is.  We and they both need new people with new money.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, msj said:

Gasp! 

You think that when debt goes up so do asset values and other economic values? 

Shocking! 

No I think that when debt spending rises it obviously increases the domestic output of consumption in that country aka GDP.

Btw do you have some kind of problem with me or something?  If so, get over it.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

In the last 30 years (that is, counting from 1986 to today), the overwhelming driver of worldwide growth has been the computer/internet revolution. All other factors pale to complete insignificance in comparison. 

I'm sure that's had a huge impact but let's not forget that the global population in 1986 was 5 billion compared to 7.5 today.  That's 2.5 billion (50%) more people today that produce and consume GDP.

[Smallc]

No, no, that has nothing to do with it.  I was told on here it has nothing to do with it, in contradiction with economic theory since forever, so it must be true.

[carepov]

On 12/11/2016 at 7:32 PM, Bonam said:

 

What the graph clearly tells me is that Japan's model works in delivering economic growth without population growth. If there is a modest difference in growth rate as compared to Canada, a modestly lower growth rate is acceptable, and something all of the world is tending towards. The point is that the hysterical yammering we hear from some that if we decrease immigration the economy will collapse has no basis in fact. It's nothing more than a talking point repeated so often that people have come to believe it, but which has no real evidence behind it. 

In 25 years from 1990 to 2015 Japan's GDP Per Capita (PPP) increased by ~$6000 (20 %) while Canada's grew by ~$12,000 (40 %).  Do you consider this a "modest" difference?

You seem to be erecting a couple of straw men. 1. Economic growth is definitely possible without population growth - no one has claimed otherwise.  2. No one is claiming that decreasing immigration will collapse the economy.

The claim is that by increasing the number of economic immigrants, Canada's economy will experience stronger growth and Canadians' standard of living will increase. The effect is small, perhaps 0.5 % per year, however, especially now that we are entering a "low-growth" environment an extra 0.5 % per year is very significant.

Here is some new food for thought:

Fact 1: Overall, including new and old-stock Canadians, our Standard of living has been growing (see per capita GDP and income growth)
Fact 2: The average immigrant/new Canadian has been earning less than the average Canadian even after 10 years and therefore has a lower standard of living (eg: see Fraser report)
Therefore: The standard of living of old-stock Canadians has been growing even faster than the average!

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Smallc said:

Infrastructure is something we need to spend a lot of money on, and I have been a proponent of that for years.

Too bad the Liberal Party doesn't think that. 

[Smallc]

The federal government has never before committed $186B over 12 years.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The federal government has never before committed $186B over 12 years.

The federal government has never before had such an elastic definition of 'infrastructure'.

[msj]

On 11/14/2016 at 10:29 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

No I think that when debt spending rises it obviously increases the domestic output of consumption in that country aka GDP.

Btw do you have some kind of problem with me or something?  If so, get over it.

Um, no, when debt rises so do assets. 

It is your lack of understanding such a simple accounting equation that bothers me - otherwise you seem like a swell enough person. 

[msj]

On 11/14/2016 at 9:12 PM, Bonam said:

1) And Bangladesh has double the population of Germany with less than half the land area. Should we all strive to be Bangladesh? And no, I won't spare the urban sprawl "nonsense". Take a look at how the world looks like:

 

In the developed world, Canada is one of the few places where you can get away from the lights. In densely populated countries, you have a sea of humans, with islands of protected parks or wild areas. In Canada, we have a pristine natural ecosystem with islands of human civilization. That is worth preserving, rather than blithely eradicating in some social-economic experiment. 

2) Why are you comparing the population of Canada to that of the US? And good luck predicting anything in 2100. There is only one thing that can be predicted about 2100: that every prediction someone makes today will almost certainly be wrong. What could you have predicted in 1916 about the year 2000?

 

The point about urban sprawl is simple: we can easily fit 30 million people into the lower part of BC. Easily 40 million across the lower parts of Ontario and across Quebec. 

Can also easily fit 30 million elsewhere in the country. 

And technology should reduce the light pollution issue as we make that a priority. 

As for comparing our population to the US - they are our neighbour and largest trading partner. With increased globalization (excluding any Trump effect as being a temporary blip) I expect it makes more sense for us to work towards a bigger population base so that our clout with them will continue. 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Easily fit 30 million into the LML?

That's pretty crazy.

[Bonam]

On 11/15/2016 at 9:07 AM, carepov said:

In 25 years from 1990 to 2015 Japan's GDP Per Capita (PPP) increased by ~$6000 (20 %) while Canada's grew by ~$12,000 (40 %).  Do you consider this a "modest" difference?

You seem to be erecting a couple of straw men. 1. Economic growth is definitely possible without population growth - no one has claimed otherwise.  2. No one is claiming that decreasing immigration will collapse the economy.

The claim is that by increasing the number of economic immigrants, Canada's economy will experience stronger growth and Canadians' standard of living will increase. The effect is small, perhaps 0.5 % per year, however, especially now that we are entering a "low-growth" environment an extra 0.5 % per year is very significant.

Unfortunately, I don't think those are straw man, because I've seen both of those claims sincerely made on this forum. For example, dre has argued that without continued immigration to sustain the housing markets with new demand for housing, our real estate bubble would pop, sending Canada into a US-2008 style recession. And in this very thread, smallc has made the claim that economies do not grow without population growth. So no, I'm not arguing against strawman but against real positions that people have. 

In regards to your example effect of 0.5% increased economic growth due to immigration... if we had solid data that could reliably trace 0.5% of our GDP/capita growth specifically to immigration, this would be a reasonable argument. But I don't see such data. The comparison to Japan (0.7% growth from your numbers above) to Canada (1.3% growth from your numbers above) showing a 0.6% difference in GDP/capita growth rate could result from the difference in immigration policy, but it could also result from any number of other factors, since Canada and Japan are very different countries. For example, Canada's economy is fueled to a large extent by the export of natural resources, some of which (oil) have gone up considerably in value over the last 25 years, and new sources of oil have been tapped (oil sands) that now contribute to Canada's economy. Meanwhile, Japan is a huge net resource importer, and is now more reliant on fossil fuel imports than ever after having shut down most of its nuclear plants 5 years ago. Additionally, Japan's economy is largely based on the development and export of advanced technology, in which they had little competition in Asia 25 years ago, but which is now dominated by South Korea (Samsung). I expect these factors have had an impact on Canada's relative growth to Japan over the last 25 years, and therefore the 0.6% difference you noted in average GDP/capita growth cannot be clearly attributed to the difference in immigration policy. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Bonam

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, msj said:

 

The point about urban sprawl is simple: we can easily fit 30 million people into the lower part of BC. Easily 40 million across the lower parts of Ontario and across Quebec. 

Can also easily fit 30 million elsewhere in the country. 

And technology should reduce the light pollution issue as we make that a priority. 

As for comparing our population to the US - they are our neighbour and largest trading partner. With increased globalization (excluding any Trump effect as being a temporary blip) I expect it makes more sense for us to work towards a bigger population base so that our clout with them will continue. 

 

I don't want to be "fit into" some ultra dense hive, and neither for the most part do people who come here as immigrants. I enjoy low density, open space, clean air, clean cities, parks. The "lower part of BC" is a beautiful place full of natural wonders, diverse ecosystems, and unique wildlife habitat. While you could "fit" 30 million people into this area, it would no longer have any of the above, instead just being a grey megacity. And to feed those 30 million people you'd need another Alberta or two full of farmland. 

 

[TimG]

2 hours ago, msj said:

The point about urban sprawl is simple: we can easily fit 30 million people into the lower part of BC. Easily 40 million across the lower parts of Ontario and across Quebec. 

You are delusional. We don't have the fresh water supplies in the lower mainland to support that population (we are already experiencing shortages in the summer with the current population of 2million). Same with food and waste and pollution. Vancouver would become a truly  horrible place to live if that kind of population was crammed in.

[meltdown66]

We do not need to increase immigration.  Increase immigration=liberal voters...

[Bonam]

16 minutes ago, TimG said:

You are delusional. We don't have the fresh water supplies in the lower mainland to support that population (we are already experiencing shortages in the summer with the current population of 2million). Same with food and waste and pollution. Vancouver would become a truly  horrible place to live if that kind of population was crammed in.

To be fair, he said "the lower part of BC", not the "lower mainland". So presumably he was talking about the land area between the coast and the Alberta border, and from the US border up to like Prince George or so. And yes, you could probably fit 30 million people there. But it would involve the destruction of most of the pristine environment that exists in the area. He's talking approximately California... the lower half of BC is about the same land area as California, and California has about 40 million people. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

To be fair, he said "the lower part of BC", not the "lower mainland". So presumably he was talking about the land area between Vancouver and the Alberta border, and from the US border up to like Prince George or so. And yes, you could probably fit 30 million people there. But it would involve the destruction of most of the pristine environment that exists in the area. 

Who needs a pristine environment when you can have a traffic jam from Prince George to Vancouver?

I live up north these days and part of the morning routine is laughing at all the commuters stuck in Vancouver traffic.