Increased Immigration not needed, will hurt workers

[ThinkBeforeYouAct]

Canadian's don't have enough children to replace themselves. If we don't have large immigration. How will we grow this very empty country. How will Canadians pay for their social welfare system on the backs of their small number of children?

Just as an aside Immigrants  contribute much more to the economy than they use up. They take jobs that our children won't, they tolerate communal living conditions that we or our children won't. Because of this they are much more economically efficient than we are. They have learned from their home countries how best to survive in this harsh world.

Give them space to grow and compassion to do it in. They will then grow this country like our great grandparents did who built the railroad from sea to sea and built this country.

[Zeitgeist]

Immigration has and can really work for Canada, but I’d like to see larger settlements in the north.  We need a Peter the Great and a St. Petersburg.   Turning southern Ontario and BC’s lower mainland into Tokyo or Hong Kong doesn’t maximize the country’s potential.  I mean we can have it, but then what?

[Argus]

13 hours ago, ThinkBeforeYouAct said:

Canadian's don't have enough children to replace themselves. If we don't have large immigration. How will we grow this very empty country. How will Canadians pay for their social welfare system on the backs of their small number of children?

To begin with, we have no need to grow. This country is twice the population it was when i was born and it has not noticeably improved its standard of living aside from technological improvements.

Second, demographics experts have made it clear immigration will only be a slight help to our aging population. We'd be better off finding ways to encourage Canadians to have children. Something we have yet to even attempt. 

Third, immigrants will only help pay for social welfare if they are economically successful enough to be paying income tax. Large numbers are not. That's particularly so for refugees and family class immigrants. With our progressives tax system you need to be earning a decent salary, especially if you have a non-working wife and children, in order to be paying income tax as opposed to receiving government services free.

13 hours ago, ThinkBeforeYouAct said:

Just as an aside Immigrants  contribute much more to the economy than they use up.

There's no evidence of this. And it would depend entirely on what kind of immigrants. Immigrants from Europe for example, earn two to three times what immigrants from many third world areas earn. However, most of our immigrants are from very poor countries.

13 hours ago, ThinkBeforeYouAct said:

They take jobs that our children won't,

Another way of putting it is they keep wages low so no one else wants these jobs. Without immigrants to take them employers would have to pay more to attract workers. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

To begin with, we have no need to grow.

Describe to me what happens over 100 years if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we stop immigration?

Describe to me what happens if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we keep immigration to replacement levels, only.

How does the economy expand if population is declining or static?

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 How does the economy expand if population is declining or static?

You can ask every conservative's hero... Dr. David Suzuki.  Uh... what ?

https://davidsuzuki.org/expert-article/what-is-economic-success-imagining-a-canada-beyond-growth/

[Argus]

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

Describe to me what happens over 100 years if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we stop immigration?

Our declining birth rate is a result of the present culture and economic system. Neither will be the same in a hundred years. Or even fifty years.

Quote

Describe to me what happens if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we keep immigration to replacement levels, only.

Demographics experts have pointed out that immigration will do very, very little to address an aging population.

Leading Canadian economists say the Liberals’ claim that higher immigration levels will offset the aging of Canada’s workforce is, at the least, extremely exaggerated.

As one economist half-joked, the only way immigration alone could actually make up for the country’s aging workforce would be if Canada exclusively brought in only 15-year-old orphans.

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.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-alas-immigration-wont-replace-canadas-aging-workforce

In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.

In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

Edited June 9, 2021 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Imagine thinking you're conservative, but rejecting mainstream economics in favour of green economics... rejecting immigration policies because you don't like immigrants... rejecting the press, the courts, and even conservative governments themselves because they're all "in on it".

 

Imagine that.

[Argus]

Imagine thinking you're conservative but fully embracing each and every single woke belief of the far left, from the hand-wringing guilt of white privilege to the penultimate importance of transgender rights and a total and absolute lack of interest, care or concern for Canadian traditions values and beliefs. Imagine wanting nothing more than to swamp Canada with millions upon millions of people from places with vastly different cultures hostile to our own so nothing remains of the hated White, Western culture and values you so despise.

Imagine that. 

[Shady]

On 6/8/2021 at 2:38 PM, dialamah said:

Describe to me what happens over 100 years if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we stop immigration?

Describe to me what happens if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we keep immigration to replacement levels, only.

How does the economy expand if population is declining or static?

Why can there never even be a slight slowing or pause in immigration?  Even during recessions or pandemics?  It’s like a religion to you people.  You people have completely priced modt of the middle class from buying a home because of your insanity.  But you people don’t ever give a shit.  It’s maximum immigration, consequences be damned.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Why can there never even be a slight slowing or pause in immigration?  Even during recessions or pandemics?  It’s like a religion to you people.  You people have completely priced modt of the middle class from buying a home because of your insanity.  But you people don’t ever give a shit.  It’s maximum immigration, consequences be damned.

It isn't a religion it's just arithmetic. If you aren't having enough babies to replace your existing population you become a nation of geezers.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It isn't a religion it's just arithmetic. If you aren't having enough babies to replace your existing population you become a nation of geezers.

Did you read what I posted? Immigration is not going to make any difference. Anyway that's not the purpose of immigration. If it was, the Trudeau government would not have quadrupled the number of elderly immigrants who could be sponsored.

[Shady]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It isn't a religion it's just arithmetic. If you aren't having enough babies to replace your existing population you become a nation of geezers.

Yes, but there are rates of immigration.  There can be ebbs and flows.  Regardless, there should be an environmental aspect of immigration as well.  What impact will tens of millions more people in Canada do to our environment?  Regardless, there are already far too many people on the planet.  Subsidizing other countries irresponsible population growth isn’t sustainable.  But I forgot, the climate change advocates suddenly stop caring about the environment and climate change when immigration is on the table.  Years of environmental assessment studies go into just building a bridge, but nothing is required for mass immigration.  That seems out of balance.  Economic studies should also be required.

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

Did you read what I posted? Immigration is not going to make any difference. Anyway that's not the purpose of immigration. If it was, the Trudeau government would not have quadrupled the number of elderly immigrants who could be sponsored.

I agree it depends on the age of the immigrants. Elderly immigrants just makes the age demographic worse.

[Shady]

This is what mass has immigration has helped create because demand has so much outpaced supply.  Thanks leftists!  Assholes.

 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Shady said:

This is what mass has immigration has helped create because demand has so much outpaced supply.  Thanks leftists!  Assholes.

 

Is it immigration or the practice of allowing foreign ownership?

Either way, I sure wish I'd gone into debt for a home when I moved there in '84.

[blackbird]

On 6/9/2021 at 12:48 PM, Shady said:

Why can there never even be a slight slowing or pause in immigration?  Even during recessions or pandemics?  It’s like a religion to you people.  You people have completely priced modt of the middle class from buying a home because of your insanity.  But you people don’t ever give a shit.  It’s maximum immigration, consequences be damned.

The reason liberals and left want to bring in one million immigrants over the next three years is because they are globalists and think Canada is a post-national state. In their mind, Canada belongs to the rest of the world.

Read an interesting article:  Diane Francis: Canada no longer deserves a seat at the big boys' table (msn.com)   Liberals and left are causing great harm to Canada's economy, military, status in the world.  The liberal elites running things are amateurs and know nothing about economics or business.  They are preoccupied with building a politically correct branch of the U.N.

Diane Francis: Trudeau's immigration scheme is just another way to redistribute Canada's wealth (msn.com)

Edited June 11, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Diane Francis: Trudeau's immigration scheme is just another way to redistribute Canada's wealth (msn.com)

This is just a bad attempt at an economic argument.

She takes a single metric and tries to say that it's an undesirable result and that immigration is to blame.

But GDP also increases with population.  An accepted way to measure wealth distribution in a country is Gini coefficient.  Canada's is middle of the pack, and largely unchanged over decades of Liberal and Conservative governments.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/gini-index-wb-data.html

 

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is just a bad attempt at an economic argument.

She takes a single metric and tries to say that it's an undesirable result and that immigration is to blame.

But GDP also increases with population.  An accepted way to measure wealth distribution in a country is Gini coefficient.  Canada's is middle of the pack, and largely unchanged over decades of Liberal and Conservative governments.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/gini-index-wb-data.html

 

"""The ravages of the pandemic have resulted in prudence elsewhere. The U.S. reduced its visa approvals a year ago, Australia lowered its immigration target to 160,000 (with 28 million people compared to Canada’s 37.7 million), and New Zealand said its priority was to train people already in the country for available jobs.

By contrast, Mendicino announced that of the 400,000 allowed in per year, the breakdown would be 232,000 immigrants in the economic class, or employable people; 103,500 in the family class (mostly parents and grandparents); and 65,000 refugees and protected persons.

Such levels are unjustifiable by many measures. Canada’s unemployment rate is high, at 8.1 per cent, compared to 6.1 per cent in the U.S, and 5.6 per cent in Australia. Canada’s economic recovery is more fragile and will take longer, according to forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. is vaccinating its way back quickly to an estimated 6.4 per cent growth in 2021 and Canada is forecast for 5 per cent growth this year, but that’s impossible given the lockdowns and border closings due to Ottawa’s ongoing vaccine procurement failure." - Diane Francis, NP

Notice a little over half of these immigrants will be employables.  Meaning Canadian taxpayers will be expect to support the other 170,000 immigrants added per year or nearly half a million over 3 years.   Considering our debt is approaching 400 billion and our health care system is stressed to the brink, this doesn't make sense.

It obvious why Liberals are bent on bringing in 1.2 million immigrants in the next three years.  It's all about future liberal votes.  103,500 will be family class and 65,000 refugees.  These people will have to be largely supported by the government (taxpayers) at a time when we are approaching 400 billion in debt.  Not a good plan.  Our allies are certainly not going down that path.  They have far more sense than the amateurs we have running things.

Edited June 11, 2021 by blackbird

[QuebecOverCanada]

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Is it immigration or the practice of allowing foreign ownership?

Either way, I sure wish I'd gone into debt for a home when I moved there in '84.

You would have to be some kind of stupid to not make a link between both. Come on, cut the BS.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Notice a little over half of these immigrants will be employables.  Meaning Canadian taxpayers will be expect to support the other 170,000 immigrants added per year or nearly half a million over 3 years.   Considering our debt is approaching 400 billion and our health care system is stressed to the brink, this doesn't make sense.

2. It obvious why Liberals are bent on bringing in 1.2 million immigrants in the next three years.  It's all about future liberal votes.  103,500 will be family class and 65,000 refugees.  These people will have to be largely supported by the government (taxpayers) at a time when we are approaching 400 billion in debt.  Not a good plan.  Our allies are certainly not going down that path.  They have far more sense than the amateurs we have running things.

1. I'm thinking maybe you are new to this topic.  Do you have something stating *specifically* that worker/family ratios have changed ?  You realize that workers tend to come here with their families, who they are expected to support ?  "health care system stretched to the brink" sounds like just a saying that people say all the time, not a specific situation that we are dealing with.  In any case, the healthcare system is designed to grow in capacity as population grows.  The people coming over will be lower in age and therefore their taxes will likely pay for the healthcare of older Canadians.  

It will not, however, cover CPP gaps.  There are too many old people drawing CPP to make a dent in that, as I understand.

2. Well, possibly, but they have to convince them to vote Liberal first.

Mainstreet Polling found that Muslims overwhelmingly supported Doug Ford in the 2018 election in Ontario so it would seem that counting on ethnic votes would be a stupid and maybe even racist idea.  I mean, they know that they get to choose who to vote for and they are informed so...

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

You would have to be some kind of stupid to not make a link between both. Come on, cut the BS.

Sure, but what kind of link ?  

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure, but what kind of link ?  

Come on. Are you serious right now.

Buying real estate in Canada is the way to go for Chinese aristocracy to leave their land.

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"""The ravages of the pandemic have resulted in prudence elsewhere. The U.S. reduced its visa approvals a year ago, Australia lowered its immigration target to 160,000 (with 28 million people compared to Canada’s 37.7 million), and New Zealand said its priority was to train people already in the country for available jobs.

 It's actually worse than that. The "Economic class" includes the principle applicant AND their family. So somewhere around forty four percent of that figure are actual principle applicants selected for their skills. And non-principle applicants do very poorly, economically. 

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It obvious why Liberals are bent on bringing in 1.2 million immigrants in the next three years.  It's all about future liberal votes

Absolutely. But they're not alone in using the immigration system for political gain The Tories do it too. In fact, it was Mulroney who tripled immigration from 84k a year to over 220k. And he did it, according to press reports, because his immigration minister had polling showing recent immigrants vote for the party in power when they come in once they get their citizenship. The current Progressive conservatives are every bit as eager to import people as Trudeau and O'Toole has gone on record as agreeing with the numbers.

That's partly because he's gutless, and utterly terrified of being accused of being 'anti-immigrant' which, of course, he would be by the united media as well as all the other parties if he dared to even suggest slightly lowering immigration.

And it's partly because his ethnic outreach people work very hard at recruiting ethnic voters. One of the main ways all parties do this is by promising laxer immigration to allow more of 'their' people in.

That's how we came to quadruple elderly immigrant sponsorship. Trudeau's people found it politically useful to promise this to certain groups (Sikhs and Muslims). That bringing in thousands of elderly immigrants costs Canada billions every years was, of course, not a consideration. It's only taxpayer money, after all.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

You would have to be some kind of stupid to not make a link between both. Come on, cut the BS.

There are conflicting claims floating about:

1. Majority of immigrants to Canada come from certain countries, and generally make less money, have poorer economic outcomes than the fewer immigrants from other countries;

2.  Too many immigrants don't work at all, because they are part of family reunification programs;

3.  Companies take advantage of immigrants to pay lower wages than they would otherwise pay;

4.  Immigrant labour drives wages downward for all Canadians;

5.  This high rate of immigration is driving the cost of housing into the stratosphere.

So, how does one resolve these conflicts?  If immigrants make less money than Canadians and drive wages down, how are they also supporting extremely high priced housing?

I think the high prices are a result of foreign investment, local investment and, in some areas, money laundering.  

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm thinking maybe you are new to this topic.  Do you have something stating *specifically* that worker/family ratios have changed ?  You realize that workers tend to come here with their families, who they are expected to support ? 

What makes more sense, bringing in a couple who are both employable at a good salary or bringing in one person who is and another who will never make more than minimum wage, if anything?

Of the people coming in less than a quarter will be selected for their skills. And those in all other categories, including the non-principle applicants under the Economic Class fare much worse in earnings and employability. And that information is based on previous immigrants. The government lowered the requirement for skills this year in order to bring in more. Apparently all they care about are numbers. More people on welfare, more elderly immigrants, more refugees. Who cares what billions that costs! It's votes for us!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-must-put-the-emphasis-on-economic-immigration

https://www.cdhowe.org/intelligence-memos/mahboubi-skuterud-–-economic-reality-check-canadian-immigration-part-ii
 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"health care system stretched to the brink" sounds like just a saying that people say all the time,

Because its been an ongoing disaster for years now, getting worse. The provinces are going bankrupt trying to pay or the inadequate health care we already have while the federal government has gradually pulled back its financial support from 50% to 23%. People face months and years of waiting for specialist services, often in pain and unable to work. That's if they're lucky and don't die waiting.

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

In any case, the healthcare system is designed to grow in capacity as population grows. 

Nice theory. But that requires money the provinces don't have.

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The people coming over will be lower in age and therefore their taxes will likely pay for the healthcare of older Canadians.  

They are barely younger, and many are already elderly and will be able to draw OAS and other payments as well as free health care services. Further, the amount of taxes paid is a function of employability and income. If the majority of those coming in have poor skillsets and will not have good incomes they will not be paying much in taxes or CPP.