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

[Argus]

17 hours ago, dre said:

Its nothing like the broken window fallacy at all. You are ignoring the fact that for a country who's services sector makes up almost the entire economy, economic growth is based on growth in demand for domestic services.

So keep breaking windows, and then you'll create a demand for more repairs. How is that different from what you're suggesting? Like it or not we cannot grow our population indefinitely anyway. A better way to grow the economy is to improve productivity, something we have spent virtually no effort on.

[carepov]

On 19/10/2016 at 6:18 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Immigration Minister John McCallum says it may.  An external advisory panel is recommending Canada increase its immigration levels from 300,000 per year to 450,000, mainly highly skilled immigrants, they say, to "stimulate economic growth".  It's no secret McCallum and the Liberals have publicly said they would like to raise immigration levels in Canada.  Is this too much? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-system-increase-mccallum-1.3812749

Is this for "economic growth"?  A grab for more immigrant voters (more likely to vote Liberal than CPC)?  Both?  Something else?  Are these proposed numbers too high?  Are the current numbers too high or too low?  It seems McCallum would probably like to increase them to these levels, but is worried of a backlash from Canadians, so maybe he's putting "feelers" out there through the media to gauge reaction.

 

Good questions.

Of course any new government policy is a calculation of voters gained/lost, this one is no different.

I have no reason to doubt that the Advisory Council on Economic Growth http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp#notes has Canada's best interests in mind and I support their recommendations.

Canada is doing very well relative to other countries by any economic measure.  More economic immigrants will strengthen our economy.  Remember these are well educated/skilled young healthy people that have saved up a lot of money for the chance to live in Canada. 

-One of Canada's comparative advantages is our ability to integrate newcomers - let's use our advantage!

-More immigrants means a larger population and stronger economy.  Infrastructure spending will be more efficient and cheaper per capita.

-More diversity will lead to more exports and more tourism

-Regarding the costs of settling these immigrants remember 2 things.  First, AFAIK these economic immigrants pay most of their costs.  Second, it is not valid to assume that the marginal costs of settling newcomers is equal to the current average costs

-Regarding the downward pressure on wages - I don't buy it - Canadians in all quintiles are earning more (constant 2012 dollars)

Table 1
Family income (before tax) and net worth (wealth) by income quintile, 1999 and 2012
Table summary
This table displays the results of After-tax family income and net worth (wealth) by income quintile Average, Median, 1999, 2012 and 1999 to 2012, calculated using dollars and percentage change units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Average			Median
	1999	2012	1999 to 2012	1999	2012	1999 to 2012
	dollars		percentage change	dollars		percentage change
Income	63,300	74,800	18.2	49,700	57,000	14.7
Bottom quintile	12,600	13,600	7.9	14,000	14,700	5.0
Second quintile	30,400	34,600	13.8	30,500	34,600	13.4
Middle quintile	49,900	57,200	14.6	49,700	57,000	14.7
Fourth quintile	76,000	88,100	15.9	75,700	86,900	14.8
Top quintile	147,500	180,600	22.4	123,900	149,500	20.7
Net worth	319,800	554,100	73.3	137,200	243,800	77.7
Bottom quintile	79,500	109,300	37.5	7,600	8,700	14.5
Second quintile	175,100	267,400	52.7	70,900	113,500	60.1
Middle quintile	261,800	453,300	73.1	135,100	236,900	75.4
Fourth quintile	360,700	641,000	77.7	203,700	388,200	90.6
Top quintile	721,900	1,300,100	80.1	424,900	879,100	106.9
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Financial Security, 1999 and 2012.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14194-eng.htm

 

[cybercoma]

37 minutes ago, carepov said:

Table 1

 

Family income (before tax) and net worth (wealth) by income quintile, 1999 and 2012
Table summary
This table displays the results of After-tax family income and net worth (wealth) by income quintile Average, Median, 1999, 2012 and 1999 to 2012, calculated using dollars and percentage change units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Average			Median
	1999	2012	1999 to 2012	1999	2012	1999 to 2012
	dollars		percentage change	dollars		percentage change
Income	63,300	74,800	18.2	49,700	57,000	14.7
Bottom quintile	12,600	13,600	7.9	14,000	14,700	5.0
Second quintile	30,400	34,600	13.8	30,500	34,600	13.4
Middle quintile	49,900	57,200	14.6	49,700	57,000	14.7
Fourth quintile	76,000	88,100	15.9	75,700	86,900	14.8
Top quintile	147,500	180,600	22.4	123,900	149,500	20.7
Net worth	319,800	554,100	73.3	137,200	243,800	77.7
Bottom quintile	79,500	109,300	37.5	7,600	8,700	14.5
Second quintile	175,100	267,400	52.7	70,900	113,500	60.1
Middle quintile	261,800	453,300	73.1	135,100	236,900	75.4
Fourth quintile	360,700	641,000	77.7	203,700	388,200	90.6
Top quintile	721,900	1,300,100	80.1	424,900	879,100	106.9
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Financial Security, 1999 and 2012.

 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14194-eng.htm

 

Not adjusted for inflation. 

But more importantly, Statistics Canada's analysis said, "Even though both debt and assets increased for nearly all types of families, the magnitude of the changes was not necessarily the same in all family categories" (StatsCan, 2015). By far the largest increase in assets was amongst people of nearing retirement (55-64), since they obviously have the most investments anyway (which mind you include corporate pensions by StatsCan's definition of "net worth"). StatsCan goes on to mention that the increase in assets is largely due to real estate values and the increases in debts is primarily due to mortgages. People nearing retirement have likely paid off their mortgages and benefitted from lower real estate prices when they got their mortgages.

A better metric for the discussion you're having here is debt-to-income ratios, namely because you're talking about downward pressure on wages (which I don't buy is from immigrants; it's from a decades-long assault on labour rights and unions). In 1999, the median family debt-to-income ratio was 0.78. By 2012 that had increased to 1.10. Don't let the median ratio fool you though, 1 in 3 families had a debt-to-income ratio of 2.0, meaning their debts were 200% of their income, in 2012. Only 25% of families were that high in 1999.

Despite the rising asset values, namely the real estate values, Canadian families debts far outpaced their incomes. The largest contributor to those debts is mortgages, so it's a double-edged sword here. You can't talk positive about increased wealth thanks to the real estate bubble without addressing the fact that mortgages have outpaced wages. People can't afford homes anymore. This isn't profligate spending on vacations and entertainment. This is people struggling to keep pace with the real estate market.

So when people are worried about immigrants pushing down wages, well that's not actually what's happening. However, people are uneasy because debts as a proportion of income are rising substantially and the largest contributor to that is the real estate market. It has nothing to do with immigrants, but a lot of people have a misconception of the economy being a zero sum game. Combine that misunderstanding with folks holding much greater debts than before, simply for trying to afford a place to live, and it's easy to see why they would place the blame on immigrants.

[carepov]

23 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Not adjusted for inflation. 

Yes they are, " All values in this article are expressed in 2012 constant dollars using the Consumer Price Index as a deflator. "

I did not intend to discuss net worth, the point was that real income in increasing in all quintiles.  However I must respond:

27 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

 People can't afford homes anymore.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011002/c-g/c-g01-eng.cfm

Also, while total debt is an important figue, more important is the debt servicing cost as a percentage of income.  The best I could find was 2006 and it shows that at that time there seemed to be no concerns:

"Percentage of households spending 30% or more of their income on shelter up marginally In 2006, an estimated 3 million households, or 24.9% of the total, spent 30% or more of their income on shelter. This was up marginally from 24.1% in 2001, but lower than the height of 26.6% in 1996, at the end of the economic downturn experienced in the early 1990s." http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-554/pdf/97-554-XIE2006001.pdf

With interest rates so much lower and incomes higher I would be surprised if home affordability was significantly worse now.

[dre]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Your pretty quick to dismiss the Frasier report or study, and yet you have not provided any real link to back your theory, Nor has our own government laid it all out in black and white what immigration costs and what benefits it brings to our nation....The Frasier report est it costs around 27 bil tax payer dollars every year to up keep our immigration system.....your say this is false.....Their have been studies that have proven that sustained immigration do not work, brushed aside by those in favor of the immigration process....I am willing to concede that I know very little about our immigration systems and their processes.....However, I do understand that the government is paying a huge price to bring in immigrants from around the globe, that some/ most do not fit into the category described by the immigration minister.....And I am stating I think it could be spent better here in Canada.....after all we are not talking about chump change here, we are talking almost 54 bil if the new plan goes through every year......that's 54 Billion dollars of our tax money.....every year.....

Its not a theory... unless you think all immigrants live on the streets. Most don't. That means they create demand for housing, which is propping up the entire services sector. The Fraser institute study doesnt look at any of the macro economic effects of having a growing population.

The Fraser institute report simply looks at direct inputs and outputs.

Do they take into account the extra taxes paid by businesses who sell immigrants products and services? No.

Do they take into account the jobs created by the services sector to meet the needs of a growing population, and the taxes paid by people in those jobs? No.

Do they take into account that without a growing population there's almost zero demand for new homes and the real-estate sector and all the other sectors that rely on it (construction, financial services, structural engineering, materials suppliers) will all go into the tank? No.

Quote

Their have been studies that have proven that sustained immigration do not work

Almost all of the most wealthy countries in the world have had sustained immigration for many many decades. Most western countries have the same sort of targets that we have. They try to keep the population growing between 1 and 3 percent. And that's not going to change any time soon because governments and the economists and business interests that advise them know how bat-shit crazy it would be to take steps that curtailed population growth.

[dre]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

So keep breaking windows, and then you'll create a demand for more repairs. How is that different from what you're suggesting? Like it or not we cannot grow our population indefinitely anyway. A better way to grow the economy is to improve productivity, something we have spent virtually no effort on.

Complete BS. A huge amount of effort has gone into increased productivity, both from the public and private sectors. 

Quote

Like it or not we cannot grow our population indefinitely anyway.

That's true, but we aren't even close to any kind of physical limit.  We will probably max out at about 100 million near the end of this century.

[betsy]

Why do we have to put up with this?  Do the math!

 

Muslims claiming cash for numerous wives

 

Oct 5, 2015

, Last Updated: 5:35 PM ET

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."

 

He estimates "several hundred" GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

The average recipient with a child can receive about $1,500 monthly, city officials said.

 

FAMILY LAW ACT

In addressing the issue of polygamous marriages, the preamble to the Ontario Family Law Act states: "In the definition of 'spouse,' a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (2)."

"There are many people in the community who are taking advantage of this," Ali said. "This is a law and there's nothing wrong with it."

Immigration officials said yesterday that polygamous marriages aren't allowed in Canada, but that contradicts the provincial law.

 

"Canada is a very liberal-minded country," Ali said. "Canada is way ahead of Britain in this respect."

He said Britain recently began permitting husbands to collect benefits for each of their wives.

 

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/4834833-sun.html

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2016 by betsy

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, dre said:

Complete BS. A huge amount of effort has gone into increased productivity, both from the public and private sectors. 

 

That graph is for the US. I believe Argus was talking about Canada. While many trends between the US and Canada are comparable, this cannot always be assumed to be the case. In fact, productivity in Canada has almost flatlined over the last 16 years (US productivity has grown by ~26% since 2001 while Canadian productivity has grown by ~7%). 

 

Quote

That's true, but we aren't even close to any kind of physical limit.  We will probably max out at about 100 million near the end of this century.

Do you want to live in a Canada where all of our current pristine wilderness has been eradicated to make room for cities, sprawl, and farmland? 3 times the population means 3 times the land use. Which first nations are we going to exterminate this time to get this land so we can settle the tens of millions of immigrants on it?

Edited October 21, 2016 by Bonam

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, dre said:

Complete BS. A huge amount of effort has gone into increased productivity, both from the public and private sectors. 

 

Here's another graph showing how abysmally Canada is doing in terms of productivity compared to other jurisdictions:

 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

That graph is for the US. I believe Argus was talking about Canada. While many trends between the US and Canada are comparable, this cannot always be assumed to be the case. In fact, productivity in Canada has almost flatlined over the last 16 years (US productivity has grown by ~26% since 2001 while Canadian productivity has grown by ~7%). 

 

Thank you....Canada is most certainly not the United States and too often such erroneous references are made because it is more convenient to do so.

[-TSS-]

Canada is probably the third or fourth most desirable destination for immigration with the USA and Britain being easily the top two countries. The quality of immigration entering your country is very much different to European countries such as France, Belgium or the Netherlands or even Finland. Hence the total absence of anti-immigration sentiment in your politics.

Edited October 21, 2016 by -TSS-

[?Impact]

8 hours ago, Bonam said:

\ In fact, productivity in Canada has almost flatlined over the last 16 years (US productivity has grown by ~26% since 2001 while Canadian productivity has grown by ~7%).

It would be interesting to get later years for that chart. The flatline in Canadian productivity in those years seems to correspond with the years of the increase in the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

It would be interesting to get later years for that chart. The flatline in Canadian productivity in those years seems to correspond with the years of the increase in the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar.

 

The possible causes are discussed here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/solving-almost-canada-s-productivity-puzzle-1.781927

[Argus]

16 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Canada is probably the third or fourth most desirable destination for immigration with the USA and Britain being easily the top two countries. The quality of immigration entering your country is very much different to European countries such as France, Belgium or the Netherlands or even Finland. Hence the total absence of anti-immigration sentiment in your politics.

It's more because we have a very tightly knit group of artistic, media, political and academic elites who have a similar groupthink which will not tolerate any opposition to immigration. They're very left of centre and highly intolerant of anyone who varies from their joint political/social message. No politician who opposes immigration dares to speak up because they will instantly be attacked as a racist and xenophobe.

In fact, many people oppose our current immigration system, and many think the quality of our immigrants could be greatly enhanced with a little common sense - which the above group completely lacks. For example, they would far and away prefer to have an immigrant who is a Somali nomad from the high desert who speaks no English and has a grade four education than a white college educated man from Finland.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Argus

[-TSS-]

It is very difficult for Europeans to move to Canada if you are over 35, you have no special skills which are in short supply in Canada or you don't have any close relatives already living in Canada.

That's exactly how it should be especially in a country which is a very attractive destination worldwide for immigration. Different rules for different people is just the problem.

Perhaps it's now just the other way round than it used to be. I don't know about the history of immigration into Canada but in Australia up until the 70's they preferred European immigration only. British and Irish given the precedence. Italians or Greeks were already on the borderline are they acceptable.

These days it's the other way round.

 

 

 

[taxme]

On 10/20/2016 at 8:41 PM, ?Impact said:

What about our French and Aboriginal heritage? Oh yeah, you have already destroyed them.

I didn't destroy anything. I wasn't even born. I had nothing to do with what took place in the past against those two mentioned. But I am not worried about their culture, I am worried about my British culture and heritage and traditions. The french and Indians have gained and were able to preserve their way of life thanks in part today to the British Anglophones of Canada. I don't think that if the french took over this country way back when that they would have tried to preserve the British culture and language, they would have tried to destroy it. Look what they got away with in quebec. They forced the Anglophones in quebec to feel like second class citizen's. 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, -TSS- said:

It is very difficult for Europeans to move to Canada if you are over 35, you have no special skills which are in short supply in Canada or you don't have any close relatives already living in Canada.

That's exactly how it should be especially in a country which is a very attractive destination worldwide for immigration. Different rules for different people is just the problem.

Perhaps it's now just the other way round than it used to be. I don't know about the history of immigration into Canada but in Australia up until the 70's they preferred European immigration only. British and Irish given the precedence. Italians or Greeks were already on the borderline are they acceptable.

These days it's the other way round.

 

 

 

It has gotten so bad in Canada since the late sixties that now 80% of all new immigrants are coming from the non-white world. Before the seventies our main new immigrants came from Britain and Europe and Australia. Now it is hard for those people to get into Canada. We have Irish friends who had a tough time trying to immigrate to Canada, and felt that immigration was trying to make it hard for them to enter Canada. Plus when they were in an immigration office in Canada they were the only white people in there, and told me that the clerk was was not so nice to them. Sometimes I hope that the non-white world would take over Canada. Then the white people of Canada will find out what being a second class citizen in your own country is all about, and I don't believe that that white people are going to like it when they are told to shut up, this is not your country anymore. I feel sadness for my grandchildren who will have to live with the fact that we gave their country away to foreigners. 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-10-21 at 0:39 PM, Argus said:

This is again an absurd argument which would only be true if immigrants brought with them hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign countries. For the most part, they almost never do. A third world resident who is worth hundreds of thousands of Canadian dollars is unlikely to want to move here and waste it all on a bungalow when he could be a wealthy man in his own country. No, the money immigrants spend is money immigrants earn here. It is already existing money. It is not new.

It's not "already existing money".  A person who works, especially in the private sector, is usually working to produce wealth, or services that often help facilitate the production of wealth.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-10-20 at 1:31 PM, Army Guy said:

What if , and I say if.....we took that 27 bil.....and turned off the immigration taps off all together....down to zero...and we invested in Canadians, increasing family allowance or call it what ever you like , but make it so that Canadians begun having more children.....to boast our own population......invest in our families....so that it is feasible for young families to have 3 or 4 children.....  if the Liberals pass this through their will be 54 Bil dollars invested in bringing in immigrants from other nations.....and we are counting on this people not to increase our unemployment numbers, to put additional strain on Medicare systems, housing costs in major city centers.....Yup.....lets not give some of those tax dollars back to Canadians, "that would be un Canadian" instead invest on immigrants....who may or may not contribute to our nation.....what if during those long winters instead of making those long trips through the huge snow bank streets of our towns and cities for condoms.....we skip a few trips and end up with a few extra dollars in our pockets.....    

Politicians don't want that.  They want women working and generating tax revenue and GDP.  They want all-day kindergarten so that women can work.  Then they want to bring in immigrants to make up for the loss in birth-rate.  Women also want to work.

[Smallc]

Plus, the idea that there would suddenly be $21B extra is completely ludicrous.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Smallc

[Argus]

22 hours ago, -TSS- said:

It is very difficult for Europeans to move to Canada if you are over 35, you have no special skills which are in short supply in Canada or you don't have any close relatives already living in Canada.

That's exactly how it should be especially in a country which is a very attractive destination worldwide for immigration. Different rules for different people is just the problem.

Unfortunately, it's almost as difficult if you are a 27 year old bilingual university graduate in Engineering. Canada gives X number of visas to its visa centres around the world, and the number allotted to Europe is extremely small compared to what is allotted to Asia and the middle east. China alone has more visa centres than all of Europe.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

It's not "already existing money".  A person who works, especially in the private sector, is usually working to produce wealth, or services that often help facilitate the production of wealth.

That's not how an economy works. The money is already there. The employer has it available and will give it to whomever they hire. That an immigrant comes and takes the job does not mean this is 'new' money as opposed to if a Canadian takes it.

The only new money comes from producing a good or service and selling it abroad for a profit.

[cybercoma]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Unfortunately, it's almost as difficult if you are a 27 year old bilingual university graduate in Engineering. Canada gives X number of visas to its visa centres around the world, and the number allotted to Europe is extremely small compared to what is allotted to Asia and the middle east. China alone has more visa centres than all of Europe.

China alone also has nearly TWICE the population as all of Europe.

[Smallc]

That and most of Europe doesn't need a visa to come here as a tourist, unlike all of China.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Smallc

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Unfortunately, it's almost as difficult if you are a 27 year old bilingual university graduate in Engineering. Canada gives X number of visas to its visa centres around the world, and the number allotted to Europe is extremely small compared to what is allotted to Asia and the middle east. China alone has more visa centres than all of Europe.

China has 2-3 time the population, twice the geographical area, and a single Embassy. Europe has about 30 Embassies, Consulates, and High Commission. There are way more opportunities in Europe to get a visa than in China. You must have a visa if you are a Chinese citizen to travel as a tourist or business in Canada, no such requirement for Europeans. Your premise that the visa centres make it easier for China is completely wrong.

Edited October 24, 2016 by ?Impact