Immigration will not help with an aging workforce

[Argus]

The demographic challenge of a low birth rate cannot be met with immigration. Period. Governments have been spouting this line for years, and our useless media, which relies on American filler and has few reporters of its own, repeats it ad nauseum without ever bothering to check.

Except for Douglas Todd.

Douglas Todd: Immigration won't replace Canada's aging workforce

Opinion: Key economists warned in the 1990s it's virtually impossible for immigration to forestall the aging of Canada's population. But few listened then. Or today.

Canada’s business-oriented C.D. Howe Institute has produced a report showing Ottawa would have to bring in 1.4 million immigrants a year for decades to counteract the country’s low birthrate and the retirement of workers. That would be a rate four times higher than the 2018 historical record of 321,000, which polls by Ipsos and others show more than half of Canadians oppose. It adds up to a “preposterous scenario,” C.D. Howe says.

“Canadians in general, and policy-makers in particular, should not think of immigration as an antidote to demographic and fiscal pressures,” says the report, concluding immigration has only a “muted impact” on Canada’s age structure. Immigration is a “terrible” way to respond to the demographics of aging, emphasizes UBC economist David Green.

“It’s not just that immigrants age. It’s that immigrants come with families. As soon as that’s true, you’re not going to alter the age structure dramatically through immigration,” Green told a recent Conference Board of Canada event in Vancouver.

It was Green, during a coffee break, who remarked the only conceivable way immigrants could offset Canada’s aging workforce would be if they were exclusively 15-year-old orphans. That’s because it would take 50 years for the teens to reach retirement age and, as orphans, they wouldn’t need to bring in any parents or grandparents.

Vancouver Sun

 

[eyeball]

Quote

It was Green, during a coffee break, who remarked the only conceivable way immigrants could offset Canada’s aging workforce would be if they were exclusively 15-year-old orphans. That’s because it would take 50 years for the teens to reach retirement age and, as orphans, they wouldn’t need to bring in any parents or grandparents.

I see Army Guy reacted to this positively.  I wonder if he recalls when I suggested empty transport planes coming home empty from Afghanistan should have been stuffed to the rafters with kids who faced being raped and acidified?
 

[jacee]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

The demographic challenge of a low birth rate cannot be met with immigration. 

I think the fact you're missing is that we have a temporary pension challenge with the demographic bulge of baby boomers.

We very numerous boomers have been a challenge to public services at every stage, most noticeable in education and now in senior health care and pensions. 

It's a blip for a couple of decades.

Immigration does help, and things will level out.

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, jacee said:

I think the fact you're missing is that we have a temporary pension challenge with the demographic bulge of baby boomers.

We very numerous boomers have been a challenge to public services at every stage, most noticeable in education and now in senior health care and pensions. 

It's a blip for a couple of decades.

Immigration does help, and things will level out.

The temporary blip is not a problem. The Boomers managed to make themselves the richest generation in history. It's not like they're going to be eating dog food after they retire. Most of them will be retiring with fully paid-off mortgages and tidy pensions. And three separate reports over the past few years have concluded that Canada does not have a shortage of workers and that none is foreseen. One of these was the Parliamentary Budget Office. I'm sure you can look it up.

And bringing in people who will not be paying income taxes does not help with senior health care and pensions. Almost half the working population pays no income tax. if we aren't bringing in very skilled people who will get good wages (ie, +$50k) you can forget about them paying for anything.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

And bringing in people who will not be paying income taxes does not help with senior health care and pensions. Almost half the working population pays no income tax. if we aren't bringing in very skilled people who will get good wages (ie, +$50k) you can forget about them paying for anything.

You are mixing up salary with economic benefit.  Would you be ok in mandating Tim Horton's to raise the wages they pay them?

 

The weird thing about these economic arguments about immigration is when conservatives try to pull both ends of the mule?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are mixing up salary with economic benefit.  Would you be ok in mandating Tim Horton's to raise the wages they pay them?

The weird thing about these economic arguments about immigration is when conservatives try to pull both ends of the mule?

I dunno, but your argument sounds like "Well, okay, a lot of these immigrants won't make much money, so we should force the rest of Canada to increase wages so they make more money."

Whereas my argument is "If they don't have the job skills to make money on their own don't bring them here and say it's because they'll be paying for our health care and pensions."

There will always be poor people and rich people in a Capitalist system. There will always be variations on how much is being earned depending on skills and drive. You can't get away from that in any Capitalist system. We try to ameliorate the worst of this through progressive taxation. But don't tell me bringing in more poor people is somehow going to pay for the pensions and health care of boomers.

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. I dunno, but your argument sounds like "Well, okay, a lot of these immigrants won't make much money, so we should force the rest of Canada to increase wages so they make more money."  Whereas my argument is "If they don't have the job skills to make money on their own don't bring them here and say it's because they'll be paying for our health care and pensions."

2. There will always be poor people and rich people in a Capitalist system. There will always be variations on how much is being earned depending on skills and drive. You can't get away from that in any Capitalist system.

3. We try to ameliorate the worst of this through progressive taxation. But don't tell me bringing in more poor people is somehow going to pay for the pensions and health care of boomers.

1. I think you mean to say we'll be paying for THEIR healthcare.  And again you assume that their salary is the measure of their economic benefit.  It's not.  Their bosses are profiting off of them and paying taxes on that economic activity.

2. Agreed

3. You are correct on the point about immigration and an aging economy.  Economic orthodoxy favours growth though.

[jacee]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Almost half the working population pays no income tax.

Nonsense.

40% of all adult Canadians effectively pay no income tax.

(NOT "the working population" )

https://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/trudeau-is-right-40-of-canadians-dont-pay-income-taxes-which-means-someone-else-is-picking-up-the-bill

They are young families raising the next generations of taxpayers, working, paying taxes and child care and getting child tax credits. Should they not be having children? 

They are low income. How would you cope with being a single parent working at McDonald's to survive? Or paying support on that? 

They are disabled or unemployable.

They are students. Duh.

They are seniors. We worked. 'Nuff said.

And the taxes paid by the wealthiest are a pittance of those they evade. 

They shouldn't be getting that rich on cheap Labour.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by jacee
Add link

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, jacee said:

 They shouldn't be getting that rich on cheap Labour.

Tim Horton's franchise owners - d'ya think they would lean Conservative or NDP ? 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think you mean to say we'll be paying for THEIR healthcare.  And again you assume that their salary is the measure of their economic benefit.  It's not.  Their bosses are profiting off of them and paying taxes on that economic activity.

I keep going back to the time when Brian Mulroney wanted to triple immigration. The Economic Council of Canada, an unbiased, government economic think-tank, said that it might help the economy a little, or might hurt it, depending on the mix of immigrants. It told him the decision would have to be made on non-economic grounds. A study last year by the UK government found much the same thing. The idea immigration is this huge boost to the economy does not appear to be supported by the evidence any more than the idea immigration can help us deal with an aging workforce and diminishing birth rate. It has instead been used as a placebo by lazy government which does not want to have to consider what actions it might take to improve the economy and improving birth rates

[August1991]

On 4/29/2019 at 8:50 PM, Argus said:

The demographic challenge of a low birth rate cannot be met with immigration. Period. Governments have been spouting this line for years, and our useless media, which relies on American filler and has few reporters of its own, repeats it ad nauseum without ever bothering to check.

I agree.

Canada is large but it does not lack for people: Canada needs more smart/literate/educated people.

====

The world does not suffer from over-population; it lacks educated children.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Canada is large but it does not lack for people: Canada needs more smart/literate/educated people.

In my workplace, Pakistanis and Indians and Russians and South Americans come here with advanced degrees and build amazing technology.  30% of my team was born in Canada.

[dialamah]

Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me that immigrants can't, at least partially, make up for a falling birthrate and aging population. 

Economic health is determined expansion: more demand for good and services, more jobs.  Fewer people means less demand, business contraction, fewer jobs.  More people means more demand, business expansion, more jobs.

In the short term, while us baby boomers retire and die off, there will be expansion in medical services demand and jobs.  Right now there are chronic shortages for nurses, doctors and lab techs to name a few.  That sector is looking at immigrants to make up the shortfall, which I suppose is why I see so many immigrant-derived health care workers.

Skilled trades in Canada are also experiencing a manpower shortage, and guess what?  They are also looking for immigrants to make up the shortfall.

Labor shortage does drive up wages, so perhaps more immigrants available to do those jobs will keep wages lower.  Given the opposition of some people to a minimum wage of $15 because of hardship to businesses, I don't quite understand their objection to immigration that may help keep wages low.  In any case, the effect on wages seems to be small, applies primarily to other immigrants and low-wage workers. 

Its kind of funny that not so long ago low-income families and women who had multiple kids were derided for only having kids to they'd get more "government money" and now the idea of rewarding (Canadian-born) women for having more babies is met with favor.

There just seems something very inconsistent about the economic argument against immigration.  Especially since the unemployment rate of immigrants is within 1% of the unemployment of Canadian-born; the idea that there is a huge group of unemployed immigrants is suspect.  Even immigrants from African countries are 72% employed, compared to 84% Canadian born; immigrants from the Philipines have the highest employment rate at 82%.  The idea that immigrants are primarily unskilled is suspect given that most of the growth in immigrant employment was in professional, scientific and technical services; finance, insurance, real estate and leasing services; manufacturing as well as health care and social assistance,".  

It may be true that immigration isn't the entire answer to a shrinking population, but it seems to be pretty important.  Who benefits by pushing the narrative that immigration isn't helpful, or that immigrants aren't working, or that immigration drives down wages?

[Michael Hardner]

Of course they can partially alleviate the problem but what does that mean?  There are too many old people.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

In my workplace, Pakistanis and Indians and Russians and South Americans come here with advanced degrees and build amazing technology.  30% of my team was born in Canada.

Yours is the kind of company we need to get rid of. I sure hope you're not getting any kind of business or tax advantage from the government.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me that immigrants can't, at least partially, make up for a falling birthrate and aging population. 

The average age of immigrants is not particularly low, especially since the Liberals quadrupled the number of elderly immigrants being sponsored by their families.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Economic health is determined expansion: more demand for good and services, more jobs.  Fewer people means less demand, business contraction, fewer jobs.  More people means more demand, business expansion, more jobs.

More jobs - but more people needing jobs - does not mean an improvement for anyone already here. Fewer people means less demand? Nordic countries have a third or a fourth our population and are doing fine. If we completely halted immigration we would continue to grow our population for the next 20 years. And no one has suggested a complete halt.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

  Right now there are chronic shortages for nurses, doctors and lab techs to name a few.

No, there actually aren't. In fact, there was a story out yesterday that said 20% of specialist doctors weren't able to find a job. The amount of doctors is controlled by the budgets of hospitals and governments.

If we have a shortage of anything then we can train those people.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

That sector is looking at immigrants to make up the shortfall, which I suppose is why I see so many immigrant-derived health care workers.

You see so many immigrant derived health care workers because they are cheap to hire and will work long hours without complaint.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Skilled trades in Canada are also experiencing a manpower shortage,

We're not importing skilled trades. 

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Labor shortage does drive up wages,

There is no shortage of labour.

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course they can partially alleviate the problem but what does that mean?  There are too many old people.

I think expansion of right-to-die policies is one answer.  Keeping people alive who have painful, debilitating illnesses with no chance of cure is expensive.  If such individuals want to die, or have previously chosen to die once their cognitive abilities decline to a certain point, I think that should be ok.  Stringent safeguards would have to be in effect, of course.

Of course, there is also the fabled ice-floe solution to the aging population.  (j/k)

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Of course, there is also the fabled ice-floe solution to the aging population.  (j/k)

Doesn't that also involve a hungry polar bear? 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Yours is the kind of company we need to get rid of. I sure hope you're not getting any kind of business or tax advantage from the government.

Why get rid of?  The skills we need are difficult to get.

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why get rid of?  The skills we need are difficult to get.

Uh huhhh. Are they really? Or does your company just pay bottom of the barrel wages so it can go to the government, cap-in-hand and say  "I can't find anyone! I need to bring in TFWs and immigrants!"?

I note that a huge number of Canadian grads from software and technology programs immediately go to the US to work because of the low wages in Canada.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uh huhhh. Are they really? Or does your company just pay bottom of the barrel wages so it can go to the government, cap-in-hand and say  "I can't find anyone! I need to bring in TFWs and immigrants!"?

I note that a huge number of Canadian grads from software and technology programs immediately go to the US to work because of the low wages in Canada.

Wages for what I do keep going up.  Tech outsourcing plateaued years ago.  I was offshores in 1999 when it started.

[dialamah]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uh huhhh. Are they really? Or does your company just pay bottom of the barrel wages so it can go to the government, cap-in-hand and say  "I can't find anyone! I need to bring in TFWs and immigrants!"?

I note that a huge number of Canadian grads from software and technology programs immediately go to the US to work because of the low wages in Canada.

Also, companies are required to pay the going rate if they bring in immigrant workers.  I know this because I used to fill out the forms and provide the proof required that we were paying them the same money we paid our Canadian sourced workers.

Not to mention, out of country workers aren't stupid; they know what their colleagues get paid and they expect to get paid the same.

The only people who might be undercutting wages are companies who hire people who don't come in on some kind of employment visa, who are unaware of worker protections in Canada and who are unskilled.  Compared to our overall immigration, such people are the minority. 

[taxme]

On 4/29/2019 at 6:43 PM, eyeball said:

I see Army Guy reacted to this positively.  I wonder if he recalls when I suggested empty transport planes coming home empty from Afghanistan should have been stuffed to the rafters with kids who faced being raped and acidified?
 

No bloody way. We do not need any more welfare refugee recipients in Canada anymore. We have enough on our welfare rolls already in Canada. Why cannot our politicians create programs for Canadians who want to have more children, and not less. There are many ways to do this. But it appears as though all our dumb ass politicians seem to want to do is bring in more legal and illegal immigrants into Canada, and that will save us all. What utter bull chit. Only dimwits will believe that more immigration is necassary and will do wonders and will be great for Canada, and not worse. Sure it will. 

[taxme]

On 4/30/2019 at 12:55 PM, jacee said:

I think the fact you're missing is that we have a temporary pension challenge with the demographic bulge of baby boomers.

We very numerous boomers have been a challenge to public services at every stage, most noticeable in education and now in senior health care and pensions. 

It's a blip for a couple of decades.

Immigration does help, and things will level out.

We have a thing called Canada Pension Plan here in Canada where employees and employers have put money into for the day when the baby boomers retire. But that is going bankrupt because the federal government has decided that they need more money to waste so what they have done now is to start stealing that money from Canadians who put money into the CPP. There would be plenty of money for Old Age Pension if the nitwit politicians that run this country would stop blowing it on refugees. This country is all f'd up thanks to our politicIans who are clueless as to how to manage our tax dollars or run a country properly. Or maybe they are doing it on purpose. I think that the latter may be true. Just saying. 

The only thing that will level anything out is to stop immigration for a awhile. More immigration will only destroy Canada even more than what it is already doing today. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Also, companies are required to pay the going rate if they bring in immigrant workers. 

Yes, but the going rate is very low compared to the United States, because of the immigration and TFWs. Companies don't have to pay anything like what the US pays tech workers because they can resort to immigrants. If they didn't have immigrants/TFWs the wages would rise as companies fought over workers. But wages have stagnated for years, largely because companies can outsource.