No new money for immigration

[tml12]

It depends how regulated the capitalism is and, most important I would argue in any situation, who is running the show.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe so, but that seems to be unrelated to the population of the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. But we must remember, with all these ideologies, it is who is running the show and, more importantly, how they interpret the ideology that counts.

I think, if you look at the Liberal Party, Martin and Turner have more original views of liberalism then Chretien, and to a greater extent, Trudeau.

[Argus]

On the subject.

"Without immigration, the U.S. population will decline because of low native birthrates."

Immigration does not "replenish" a country's population, it replaces it. American history is instructive on this point. Between 1790 and 1830, a period in which the total number of immigrants was about 385,000, or under 10,000 per year, the U.S. population increased by an astonishing nine million (from 3.9 million in 1790 to 12.9 million in 1830). This tripling was due mainly to the natural increase of the 1790 population, not to immigration. As population expert Francis A. Walker noted in a famous essay published in 1891, this very high native birthrate dropped subsequent to the upward turn of immigration after 1830 and the even sharper increase of immigration after 1840. The reason for this, Walker argued, was that immigrants lowered living standards, wage levels, and working conditions, which resulted in reduced prospects for the native population, which made having large families less attractive. Immigration thus caused a drop in the native birthrate, replacing those lost native births with immigrants.(12) The same effect of mass immigration on wages and working conditions is clearly in operation today, along with the same effect on the native birthrate. -- Lawrence Auster

[RB]

To stabilized the current population we currently need about 250,000 extra people.

Sorry folks these are figures taken from Statistics Canada 2002b

Just in case you begin to worry and lose sleep over my posted figures

There is a graph available also if you can find it - Dumas, 1990, Beauja, Basavarajappa, and Verrm, 1988, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2002

[RB]

On the subject.

"Without immigration, the U.S. population will decline because of low native birthrates."

Immigration does not "replenish" a country's population, it replaces it. American history is instructive on this point. Between 1790 and 1830, a period in which the total number of immigrants was about 385,000, or under 10,000 per year, the U.S. population increased by an astonishing nine million (from 3.9 million in 1790 to 12.9 million in 1830). This tripling was due mainly to the natural increase of the 1790 population, not to immigration. As population expert Francis A. Walker noted in a famous essay published in 1891, this very high native birthrate dropped subsequent to the upward turn of immigration after 1830 and the even sharper increase of immigration after 1840. The reason for this, Walker argued, was that immigrants lowered living standards, wage levels, and working conditions, which resulted in reduced prospects for the native population, which made having large families less attractive. Immigration thus caused a drop in the native birthrate, replacing those lost native births with immigrants.(12) The same effect of mass immigration on wages and working conditions is clearly in operation today, along with the same effect on the native birthrate. -- Lawrence Auster

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very funny!

I suppose this is the perspective for present day

[Argus]

On the subject.

"Without immigration, the U.S. population will decline because of low native birthrates."

Immigration does not "replenish" a country's population, it replaces it. American history is instructive on this point. Between 1790 and 1830, a period in which the total number of immigrants was about 385,000, or under 10,000 per year, the U.S. population increased by an astonishing nine million (from 3.9 million in 1790 to 12.9 million in 1830). This tripling was due mainly to the natural increase of the 1790 population, not to immigration. As population expert Francis A. Walker noted in a famous essay published in 1891, this very high native birthrate dropped subsequent to the upward turn of immigration after 1830 and the even sharper increase of immigration after 1840. The reason for this, Walker argued, was that immigrants lowered living standards, wage levels, and working conditions, which resulted in reduced prospects for the native population, which made having large families less attractive. Immigration thus caused a drop in the native birthrate, replacing those lost native births with immigrants.(12) The same effect of mass immigration on wages and working conditions is clearly in operation today, along with the same effect on the native birthrate. -- Lawrence Auster

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very funny!

I suppose this is the perspective for present day

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it is something to think about anyway. It is impossible to argue the fact that large scale immigration depresses wages and working conditions. And it is costing us a ton of money. Could it not be at least a factor?

I would vote for lowering immigration while putting money into day care subisides, requiring most employers to adopt a more flexible work schedule for young mothers, and increasing economic support for family leave. I would far rather replace Canadians with Canadians than with foreigners.

[RB]

I would like to understand your views on why growth is needed instead of taking it as a given.

Firstly, I think there are too many people who think that there are too many people.

We have come a far way and look how we capable of sustaining life. For example while the third worlds can destroy the enviornment the first is capable (technology) and have the means (money) to sustain it.

People have better lives than previously and are living longer. Now you need a constant generation to replace those who will retire to enjoy their longer lives.

Also, look at how our government is subsidizing farmers not to produce food.

Tell me that we are depleted of resources to feed more people.

If I were to price population I can say that with free market operation people just keep getting richer and richer and these are the rich countries have low birth rates problems.

Nevertheless, we will come to a point where we cannot have increase growth and productivity in this economy if you don’t have enough people to work, and consume.

And I am hardly Ford who aim to produce cars for the entire population, well Ford needed population growth for a reason like the more the merrier

As far as I can see Canada has grown miserable enough to halt its own population. Perhaps the miserable acknowledges that you have a big mass of empty white land.

Why not help stop population growth elsewhere and to continue to grow our own population.

The percentage of women in Canada opting not to have children should give an warning indication that there need to be some major strategies with population planning - it is far too high for comfort

[Renegade]

Firstly, I think there are too many people who think that there are too many people. 

I guess I'm one of those people. With 6 billion people in the world today and expected to be 12 billion by 2100, I think there are more than enough people already.

We have come a far way and look how we capable of sustaining life. For example while the third worlds can destroy the enviornment the first is capable (technology) and have the means (money) to sustain it.

What we are capable of and what we do are quite different. Yes the Third World is destroying the environment, but so is the First World. Per capita the First World consumes much more than the Third World. Even in (maybe especially in) the First World we hardly live in harmony with the environment. We may have the capability and wealth to live in balance with the environment, however we don't have the will to make the necessary tradeoffs that such a life would require. Until we can prove we lead a environmentally sustaining environment, I think it is ill advised to spur population growth.

People have better lives than previously and are living longer.  Now you need a constant generation to replace those who will retire to enjoy their longer lives.

In some ways we have better lives, in other ways we don't. People complain about stressful jobs, about needing two incomes to run a household, etc. Certainly some of the better lives we enjoy have come at a cost. Pollution to the environment, holes in the ozone, etc.

Also, look at how our government is subsidizing farmers not to produce food. 

Tell me that we are depleted of resources to feed more people. 

This isn't just about food. I would guess that if the only objective is keeping people alive we can generate enough nourshiment in some form to substantially increase the population. But the objective is not simply to keep people alive is it? We each want enjoyable and fulfilling lives. To do that we consume resources, polute the environment, occupy land, create garbage, consume energy, etc. For each of these, the more people there are, the less each individual can consume to better his life.

If I were to price population I can say that with free market operation people just keep getting richer and richer and these are the rich countries have low birth rates problems. 

Nevertheless, we will come to a point where we cannot have increase growth and productivity in this economy if you don’t have enough people to work, and consume.

And I am hardly Ford who aim to produce cars for the entire population, well Ford needed population growth for a reason like the more the merrier

Low birth rate is only a problem if you treat it a such. I feel it is a benefit.

You absolutely can increase productivity without increasing population. Productivity by definition means each worker produces more output. That doesn't really depend upon population growth to do so.

When Ford was first building cars, he didn't need population growth, because no one had one and the existing population was a huge market to try and satisify.

As cars became more available, the market reached the point of saturation as we have today. (where in some places we have 2 cars for each individual). The way out of this is not population growth. There are plenty of existing populations in other countries who are not at the same level of saturation. As well, by building a better product a company can create demand even in a saturated market.

You're correct that if the birth rate decline causes the population to be so small that the economy cannot sustain itself (ie it loses the economy of scale), then people's standard of living will go down. But we're a long long way from that scenario, and the more immiment danger is one of overconsumption of resources.

As far as I can see Canada has grown miserable enough to halt its own population. Perhaps the miserable acknowledges that you have a big mass of empty white land.

Why not help stop population growth elsewhere and to continue to grow our own population.

The percentage of women in Canada opting not to have children should give an warning indication that there need to be some major strategies with population planning - it is far too high for comfort

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would not characterize as that "Canada has grown miserable enough" and that is why it has slowed growth. In fact is is a symptom of affulence that the birth rate has declined.

Frankly as I have said I don't have any problem with fewer women having children. In one sense it will make society better, as only the women with a strong maternal drive will have kids and as such are likely to be better mothers.

BTW, one thought, if you want to encourage a higher birth rate, you could just tax the hell out of birth control. Not that I'm advocating it, but it is a similar strategy to what the govenrment ususally does when they want to encourage or discourage something.

[BHS]

Renegade:

1) Where do you get the 12 billion figure from? The most realistic projection I've seen based on current demographic trends peaks at 8 billion or so, and then begins to recede.

2) Without specific examples proving that first world pollution is out of control, it's hard for me to agree with your argument. Yes, we pollute, but is our level of polluting uncontrolled or even excessive? Are environmental conditions in the first world degrading? I don't see it happening, and I don't put a lot of stock in environmental alarmism. (I'm waiting with mild excitement for Black Dog's reply to this comment.)

3) As to your third comment: life is and always has been full of trade-offs. However, I think that we (as a species) are in a relatively unique period of transition, and that the problems you've expressed have a lot to do with our abilities and knowledge exceeding our cultural norms and traditions and values. I think every new generation for the next hundred years or so will be continually redefining themselves and their lifestyles away from the terms that defined the preceding generation, until humans have adjusted to a potentially ever increasing collective sets of knowledge and ability. I think we live in a very cool time.

4) Though what you've set appears to be nothing more than common sense, there's nothing in the history of the world that bears your statement out. Though more humans live on the planet than ever before in history, the average caloric intake is also higher than it's ever been. Energy and raw materials consumption is intimately tied to supply - as supply dwindles, price increases and consumption of that commodity drops off in favour of a replacement. Paul Ehrlich predicted in 1971 that the first world would stop sending food aid to India in 1984 because the situation by then would be hopeless. Today India is a next exporter of wheat, and it's economy is exploding into the information age, all with more people than ever.

5) As I mentioned above, overconsumption of resources isn't a factor in a functioning market economy. It only becomes a problem, ironically, in the state controlled economic model favoured by the very people who tend to fret about overconsumption of resources. (Waiting for the inevitable eureka post for this comment.)

6) I assume you mean taxing birth control pills. Abortion is, I believe, fully covered by Provincial healthcare plans in most Provinces, for the very reason of making it available to everyone regardless of financial constraint. I'm all for ending the governments' being fiscally responsible for a procedure which advocates claim is no more ethically challenging than cosmetic surgery. Are you?

[Renegade]

1) Where do you get the 12 billion figure from? The most realistic projection I've seen based on current demographic trends peaks at 8 billion or so, and then begins to recede.

STUDY ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Population

In 1990 the global population was 5.3 billion people, a 2.3 billion increase over 1960. Median projections of the World Bank show continuing population growth throughout the next century, to 8.1 billion by 2020, 10.1 billion by 2050, and levelling off at around 12 billion by 2100. Of this growth 95% (6.6 billion people) is in countries currently classified as 'developing', while only 3% (230 million people) is in OECD countries (WEC 1993, p.47).

Of course these are all just educated guesses, and I'm not willing to quibble on if the projected growth is to 9 billion or 12 billion. Whatever the case, we're still heading for more people. The more interesting question, is how much is enough.

Have a look at this Human Carrying Capacity of Earth

The estimates of how much the earth can sustain vary widely from 1 billion to 14 billion. The worrisome part is that we may be already past the point of sustainability.

2) Without specific examples proving that first world pollution is out of control, it's hard for me to agree with your argument. Yes, we pollute, but is our level of polluting uncontrolled or even excessive? Are environmental conditions in the first world degrading? I don't see it happening, and I don't put a lot of stock in environmental alarmism. (I'm waiting with mild excitement for Black Dog's reply to this comment.)

BHS, that's a good question but unfotunately it is a subjective one. What does "out of control" or excessive mean?

I live by Lake Ontario, and have for years. Never in that time have I been able to go for a swim or dare fish in it. Why, because the lake has got to a level of pollution which makes my fears substantiated. And sure, I probably can go swimming, and I probably won't get sick, but is it really a chance I want to take? Toronto frequently has to monitor the water quality in summer and issue warnings for people to avoid the water. Is that excessive pollution? For me it is, and until we get to the point that we are actually cleaning up the mess which was made by the volumes of people and industry, it is hard for me to see why we should be encouraging more people.

3) As to your third comment: life is and always has been full of trade-offs. However, I think that we (as a species) are in a relatively unique period of transition, and that the problems you've expressed have a lot to do with our abilities and knowledge exceeding our cultural norms and traditions and values. I think every new generation for the next hundred years or so will be continually redefining themselves and their lifestyles away from the terms that defined the preceding generation, until humans have adjusted to a potentially ever increasing collective sets of knowledge and ability. I think we live in a very cool time.

I agree, we live in a very cool time, but I am somewhat more pessimistic about human behaviour and its tendancy to be altrustic. For generations our behaviour has been to exloit the environment for our own wellbeing. We are generally short-sighted in our approach because we value more our standard of living during our lifetimes than the future sustainability of the planet. You seem willing to put a big bet on future generations making a change to that behaviour. In my view that is a risky bet and not one I'd be willing to make.

4) Though what you've set appears to be nothing more than common sense, there's nothing in the history of the world that bears your statement out. Though more humans live on the planet than ever before in history, the average caloric intake is also higher than it's ever been. Energy and raw materials consumption is intimately tied to supply - as supply dwindles, price increases and consumption of that commodity drops off in favour of a replacement. Paul Ehrlich predicted  in 1971 that the first world would stop sending food aid to India in 1984 because the situation by then would be hopeless. Today India is a next exporter of wheat, and it's economy is exploding into the information age, all with more people than ever.

From the link I previously posted:

The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is defined as the "maximum population size of a species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future"1 . Biological studies of population change typically demonstrate that once the carrying capacity of an ecosystem is exceeded, a severe crash or collapse of the population follows associated with rapid environmental degradation.2 An example of the "boom-bust" cycle of population growth is found on St. Matthew Island, Alaska, where 29 reindeer were initially introduced in 1944. The reindeer population grew to 6,000, depleted the resource base, and subsequently declined to fewer than 50 deer by 1964.

In the example of the 29 reindeer in Alaska, you can see that for a while the reindeer population grew to 6000. And yes, the situation righted it self out by when the reindeer population grew too large, it caused mass starvation and a population crash. In your analogy market forces would raise prices of scarce resources. You cannot assume there will always be a low cost replacment. (Nuclear power was assumed to be a low cost replacement for oil at one time).

My point is that you are correct that market forces will raise prices of resources when there is demand, however what will likely happens is that at least part of the population will not be able to afford the prices and will likely have to suffer a miserable existance or death because of that.

Is what we really want boom and bust cycles where we have to compete with each other for scarce resources, and at least part of the population will be miserable in the process?

5) As I mentioned above, overconsumption of resources isn't a factor in a functioning market economy. It only becomes a problem, ironically, in the state controlled economic model favoured by the very people who tend to fret about overconsumption of resources. (Waiting for the inevitable eureka post for this comment.)

Your right market forces will effect prices such that we won't be able to overconsume, but the natural effect is that for those of us who generate demand (us consumers), we will have to get by will less. So why would we want that?

As an example view property prices in Toronto (or Vancouver, or wherever). For the most part most people can afford a postage-stamp plot of land with little or no backyard, if they can afford a house at all. Do we really want more people competing for the same land? Who really wants a quality of life which forces us to commute for 2 hours each way?

6) I assume you mean taxing birth control pills. Abortion is, I believe, fully covered by Provincial healthcare plans in most Provinces, for the very reason of making it available to everyone regardless of financial constraint. I'm all for ending the governments' being fiscally responsible for a procedure which advocates claim is no more ethically challenging than cosmetic surgery. Are you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was being facetious in my comment on taxing birth control. Personally I advocate government staying out of personal decisions, and I can think of no more personal a decision than that to have a child. So I dont' advocate either governmental incentive (eg child-care subsidies) or punitive (taxing) measures to change population growth.

In my statement above I actually didn't mean strictly birth control pills. Abortion is a form of birth control, different in form but not in objective in the other types.

Not to hijack this thread into a discussion on abortion, but while I don't consider a medically necessary procedure which has the same justification for funding as heart-surgery, there are practical reasons why a government would want to fund it. That practical reason is that under our social programs, it would cost the government far more in welfare, medical, educational, and social costs if the unwanted pregnancy was carried to term than if it were terminated. Since childbirth is a covered expense who's cost far exceeds that of an abortion, the government actually saves money by paying for an abortion.

[BHS]

Renegade:

1) I had a look at both of your sources. The approach in both is scholarly and respectable, but there are so many overlooke variable that haven't been considered that I don't even want to get into it. Suffice it to say that predicting the population a hundred years hence is as difficult and unreliable as predicting the weather (and no, I don't put much stock in the current long range computer prediction models for that either).

2 & 3) I too live close to both Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and no, I would swim or fish in Lake Ontario either (though I have done both, recently, in Erie). Ontario has been horribly polluted for many years. However, predictions in the sixties were that the situation was so bad that the lake would be dead by now. It's not; it's actually improving. Environmental regulation, university level education and public awareness are working. Though I'm not a betting man, I'm convinced that the situation will continue to improve as our knowledge of the subtle mechanisms within the biosphere improves, and our techniques for both preventing new pollution and cleaning up old pollution improve.

4) The link you provide also goes on to say, immediately after the part that you've quoted, that human beings of course avoid these boom and bust cycles in population because we alter our environmental circumstances to improve food supply. Also, as you've alluded, human reproduction is not related to food supply - we in the first world have the most and best food, but very few first world countries have enough reproduction to maintain population levels, and rely in immigration instead.

Going back to what I said in my earlier post, I believe that coming generations will alter their lifestyles accordingly, without our explicit further interventions. In other

words, the amount of energy, effort, money and political capital we currently expend on protection for the environment is sufficient, in my view, because we can always increase it as our knowledge of the situation grows.

5) So your proposal, to avoid future deprevation, is to bring deprevation into the present. Which, by the way, does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the fact that non-renewable resources will eventually disappear anyway.

6) Interesting. In the first draft of my previous post I asked if you were being facetious. I have no interest at this time in discussing abortion any further in this thread, unless your response to comment 5 above involves culling the herd, so to speak.

[Renegade]

2 & 3) I too live close to both Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and no, I would swim or fish in Lake Ontario either (though I have done both, recently, in Erie). Ontario has been horribly polluted for many years. However, predictions in the sixties were that the situation was so bad that the lake would be dead by now. It's not; it's actually improving. Environmental regulation, university level education and public awareness are working. Though I'm not a betting man, I'm convinced that the situation will continue to improve as our knowledge of the subtle mechanisms within the biosphere improves, and our techniques for both preventing new pollution and cleaning up old pollution improve.

No doubt we have come a long way in our environmental awareness since the sixties and no one can be more pleased that I about the improvement in Lake Ontario, however we still have a long way to go. As you may know much of the measurements of pollution in Lake Ontario is the measurements of chemical pollutant contamination (such as PCB). Enviornmental laws over the last 20 years have resulted in us dumping vastly less chemical pollutants then before, however the lake still is a dumping ground for non-chemical pollutants (ie sewage).

Your optimisim about the situation is based upon the improvement in the last 20 years. My pessisism is based upon the 1000s of years of human history before that which got us into this situation.

My point is this, you may be correct that the enviornmental situation will improve, but that is far from certain. In my view, we should be encouraging the process by not taxing the environment any more than we do now. By encouraging population growth we are further pressuring an ecosystem and increasing the onus and time pressure to find solutions.

4) The link you provide also goes on to say, immediately after the part that you've quoted, that human beings of course avoid these boom and bust cycles in population because we alter our environmental circumstances to improve food supply. Also, as you've alluded, human reproduction is not related to food supply - we in the first world have the most and best food, but very few first world countries have enough reproduction to maintain population levels, and rely in immigration instead.

The paragaraph you refer to is the following:

Though human population growth can demonstrate similar cycles,4 human population is also affected by more than just resource availability. We, as humans, are unique in our ability to modify the environment and to improve technology for food and energy production. These unique abilities combined with the inherent social nature of humans complicate the estimation of the human carrying capacity of the planet.

It doesn't quite say that human beings can avoid the boom-bust cycle, it says it complicates the estimation. Regardless, I believe you are right. Humans have control more than other species and can both modify the environment and make intelligent decisions. In my view, we need to be progressing on both fronts. Both, evolving better environment-friendly technology and making intelligent decisions such as that to minimize population growth (or allow the population to naturally decline).

Going back to what I said in my earlier post, I believe that coming generations will alter their lifestyles accordingly, without our explicit further interventions. In other

words, the amount of energy, effort, money and political capital we currently expend on protection for the environment is sufficient, in my view, because we can always increase it as our knowledge of the situation grows.

I'm in agreement with you. I'm not advocating further interventions, and what I'm proposing is the the government DO NOT intervene in trying to sitmulate population levels.

5) So your proposal, to avoid future deprevation, is to bring deprevation into the present. Which, by the way, does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the fact that non-renewable resources will eventually disappear anyway.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this (ie by "bring deprevation into the present."). My point is that the "Growth is Good" philosophy, at least when it refers to population growth, is taken as fact. I challenge that fact and I have not yet seen convincing evidence that our standard of living will collapse if we stop growing and start declining as a popluaiton. What I do see is evidence that population growth risks impacting our standard of living, and I'm unclear as to why that would be a risk we would want to take.

FYI. Have a look at this Myth: Growth is good.

6) Interesting. In the first draft of my previous post I asked if you were being facetious. I have no interest at this time in discussing abortion any further in this thread, unless your response to comment 5 above involves culling the herd, so to speak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only thing I am suggesting is that the govenrment stay out of personal decisions and neither promote nor disuade population growth. Population levels are headed in the right direction, and the govenment should not interfere with a misguided sense of what is "right"

[BHS]

Renegade:

I didn't find the article you linked to to be too persuasive. I've read other articles (no links, unfortunately) that address and rebut all of the points made in your article, which by the way appears to be about a decade old (not that that matters too much). I'm not trying to persuade you here (if I was, I'd hunt down different opinions for you). I'm just saying that I'm sticking to my positions expressed previously.

[Renegade]

BHS,

I understand that you feel that at least in developed countries we will be adaptable to accomodate growth. Maybe I missed it but perhaps you can answer the following:

1. Do you think the government ought to actively promote population growth? (ie through programs like immigration, baby bonuses, child care subsidies?

2. Do you see a problem if the population naturally declines because less people choose to have kids?

[RB]

BHS,

I understand that you feel that at least in developed countries we will be adaptable to accomodate growth. Maybe I missed it but perhaps you can answer the following:

1. Do you think the government ought to actively promote population growth? (ie through programs like immigration, baby bonuses, child care subsidies?

2. Do you see a problem if the population naturally declines because less people choose to have kids?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a problem with population decline. The idea of government intervention is that of linking economic benefits to child planning which is needed step transition for every country - otherwise there will be gaps and unstable economy.

Good family planning involves strong government support.

Those affluential women are the ones that need to be encouraged to see families as part of construct in family live. Least they have some income than be blinded by those with maternal instinct with stuggles, and nothing much to support life.

It is careers and economic factors that play a great part in women attitudes towards family.

But also women feel that they are not getting enough support needed to fill their reproductive intentions. I am a woman so please don't try to tell me differently.

The reasons why women are opting to be careful about having kids is that the woman carries the blunt of social and financial cost burden. Men only pay a price for those kids.

If a government enable women to achieve a level of empowerment and maybe much more they will have the freedom to lead the lives they value and see a reason to value it.

I'll let you know also why women are afraid to be saddle with children:

- women are always having to look for productive alternatives because this society reward guess who

- how many men do you know will enter into business or economic partnership with women. In my mind, I feel that in a social setting as in (relationships) there is an obstruction that simply closes off possibilities of such partnerships and make women second think their choices

Anyway, my believe is that if government do not intervene, women desire to have children fails, because the responsibilities becomes daunting by themselves, challenges remain too much and the burden is far too heavy.

Governments can create conditions necessary to stimulate population growth or foster a baby culture by ways of their policies for e.g. gender sensitive budgets, quality of care for women, and programs aimed at helping men understand their health and women needs, and plus the government generous contribution to women's welfare.

[BHS]

BHS,

I understand that you feel that at least in developed countries we will be adaptable to accomodate growth. Maybe I missed it but perhaps you can answer the following:

1. Do you think the government ought to actively promote population growth? (ie through programs like immigration, baby bonuses, child care subsidies?

2. Do you see a problem if the population naturally declines because less people choose to have kids?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks RB. My turn:

2) I have to answer your second question first. Population decline isn't a problem if you're content to live in a world where very few people ever get to retire, and where social programs are cut back drastically from their current levels. A declining population is by default an aging poplulation. The way our economy and social programs currently function relies on a steadily increasing supply of productive new blood. If we decide to intentionally allow our poplulation to decline it will force us to make a host of other changes to the way we live to accomodate the consequences. Whether that is a problem or not is pretty subjective.

1) I'm not a big fan of government subsidies period. Baby bonuses and tax breaks have always struck me as low-income vote getters rather than constructive ways to encourage population growth. I don't think there's any reasonable way for the federal government to spend enough money to intice native born Canadians to increase birthrates to an effective level, at the expense of our more modern, low birthrate lifestyle.

If you are prepared to live with the consequences I outlined in answer 2, then limiting immigration isn't a problem. Otherwise, we have to rely immigration to maintain our current standard of living. It's as simple as that. Being as I'm in no hurry to make those kinds of drastic changes, I happen to view immigration as a good thing. Even unproductive immigrants have needs that require spending, and spur the economy. I don't believe the old trope about lazy immigrants sucking up welfare money - sure, living on welfare in Canada is better than busting your ass in Bombay (or at least it used to be) but if busting your ass in Canada can make you and your family rich, why not? That's the message I've gotten from all of the immigrants I've known.

[Renegade]

There is a problem with population decline. The idea of government intervention is that of linking economic benefits to child planning which is needed step transition for every country - otherwise there will be gaps and unstable economy.

Good family planning involves strong government support. 

RB, If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that economic benefits derive from avoiding population gaps which would lead to an unstable economy. You have also linked the population growth to family planning and your argument is that the government ought to be involved in family planning in order to avoid the gaps you refer to.

I agree that erratic growth or declines can have huge economic consequences and should be avoided for economic benefit. However there are NO crisis events happening or expected which cause huge fluctuations in the population level. (By crisis, I mean things like epidemics or wars which wipe out a large number of the population).

Consider this:

1. The population of Canada is growing. This is due to a number of factors that despite the declining birth rate, people are living longer and we take immigrants. CANADA'S POPULATION

2. Even if we were to drastically reduce the number of immigrants, and the population were to decline, the decline is so gradual that is hard to imagine that it would cause a gap with which the economy cannot cope. We have unemployment in the range of 4-10% of the working population. Any even small decline in the overall population of the workforce can easily be buffered by tapping into the currently unemployed (to the mutual benefit of both the unemployed and society)

Those affluential women are the ones that need to be encouraged to see families as part of construct in family live.  Least they have some income than be blinded by those with maternal instinct with stuggles, and nothing much to support life.

It is careers and economic factors that play a great part in women attitudes towards family.

You are making a value judgment here. You are deeming that women who choose families over income is "good" and should be "encouraged". You are deeming women who choose affluence over family are "bad" and need to be shown the value of family life.

I maintain that there is no such moral designation, and no-one and especially not governments ought to making those designations. Those choices are personal choices and should be left up to the individual to decide what is good or bad FOR THEM. Government ought to stay out of trying to encouraging one choice over the other.

The fact is one of the reasons the birthrate has declined is that women are in a position of affluence and have greater choice than ever before. Having that choice means that some will choose not to have kids or have fewer kids. So what? There is nothing wrong with that.

Canada's birth rate falls to record low

Demographic experts say the reasons for the drop-off are obvious: priorities have changed. The biggest change has come from the increasing number of women who are working longer before starting a family.

But also women feel that they are not getting enough support needed to fill their reproductive intentions. I am a woman so please don't try to tell me differently.

RB, I don't presume to tell you any different. Yes I understand that other women may also feel this way, but the only one who "owes" a woman support to fill their reproductive needs is their spouse as it is a joint obligation. If you don't feel there is enough support for reproductive intentions, then the answer is simple, don't have kids. But if you do, do it understanding it is a decision you and your spouse have made and as a responsibility you accept without feeling a sense of entitlement from society.

The reasons why women are opting to be careful about having kids is that the woman carries the blunt of social and financial cost burden.  Men only pay a price for those kids.

When a woman opts to have a child she should know full well what here social and financial cost are. She can negotiate what ever division of responsibilities she wants to with her spouse. If a women shoulder more of the burden it is because she has chosen to undertake that burden as the price for having kids. If a woman doesn't feel she is getting a fair shake, she is free to say no. I suspect that the reason why there is an unequal division of the burden is that women in general feel the need to have kids more than men and are more willing to take on more of the responsibility in order to fill that need.

If a government enable women to achieve a level of empowerment and maybe much more they will have the freedom to lead the lives they value and see a reason to value it.

In my view you are putting too much onus on the government to enable women. The governments' role (in my view) is to stay on the sidelines as a neutral party. Men do not have the option of bearing kids, and for many men they don't feel the need to have kids to the same extent women do. Our modern society has given women choice which they never had before and as a result of that they are making choices which they were never able to do before. Just because they are faced with tough choices which involve trade-offs doesn't obligate the rest of society to have to subsidize a woman's choices so she can "have everything".

I'll let you know also why women are afraid to be saddle with children:

- women are always having to look for productive alternatives because this society reward guess who

-  how many men do you know will enter into business or economic partnership with women. In my mind, I feel that in a social setting as in (relationships) there is an obstruction that simply closes off possibilities of such partnerships and make women second think their choices

as I've said before, if a woman finds the burden of having children too daunting and she doesn't have enough of a support structure in place, she is free not to have children. I don't condemn her for making that choice and in fact applaud her good sense in not taking on children which she may not be able to handle.

Anyway, my believe is that if government do not intervene, women desire to have children fails, because the responsibilities becomes daunting by themselves, challenges remain too much and the burden is far too heavy.

Governments can create conditions necessary to stimulate population growth or foster a baby culture by ways of their policies for e.g. gender sensitive budgets, quality of care for women, and programs aimed at helping men understand their health and women needs, and plus the government generous contribution to women's welfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally I'm ok if women's desire to have children fall. It only points to our success as a society that we have given women more choices than ever. I don't believe economicaly we will suffer as the population decline is so gradual that the economy can easily adapt or can adjust by using immigration. The only impact on a government's lack of involvement is to those in society who feel an entitlement that others ought to be responsible for the kids which they alone freely chose to have.

[Renegade]

2) I have to answer your second question first. Population decline isn't a problem if you're content to live in a world where very few people ever get to retire, and where social programs are cut back drastically from their current levels. A declining population is by default an aging poplulation. The way our economy and social programs currently function relies on a steadily increasing supply of productive new blood. If we decide to intentionally allow our poplulation to decline it will force us to make a host of other changes to the way we live to accomodate the consequences. Whether that is a problem or not is pretty subjective.

BHS, I agree with you. There will be an impact on retirement and social programs of a population decline. Yes, our economic and social programs today rely on a steadily increasing supply of new productive workers. But that's the problem isn't it? This is the Ponzi scheme I referred to earlier. The problem to address is to fix how our social programs are funded, not to exacerbate the problem by increasing the dependence upon population growth.

Let me give you some examples:

1. CPP. For many years what CPP used to fund its payout was the amounts it collected in from the working population base. It could afford generous payouts because the population ever increased, so as long as each generation retired, and there was an even bigger generation working, the generous payouts could be afforded. With the eventual retirement of the baby-boom, in the 90s the plan looked in trouble. The volume of impending retirees, combined with people living longer looked bigger than the working population base. Benefits would need to be cutback dramatically. What happened? Contribution rates were ratcheted up considerably to ensure survivability of the plan. In addition the CPP went to an investment scheme where by surplus funds are invested generating a hopefully higher return and hopefully enough to fund future population's retirement. The scheme is still fraught with risk. People could live longer, retire earlier, or investment returns could dramatically decline.

A more sensible scheme (in my view), one which didn't depend upon population growth would have seen CPP structured more like a "Retirement Savings Account". Some countries call this a "Provident Fund". It is mandatory contributions to a retirement fund which are invested on your behalf by the government. What you get out is simply the accumulation of what you put in plus the investment returns. It doesn't at all depend upon having greater population to fund the retirement scheme.

2. Health care. I saw an estimate somewhere that each person over 65 cost the government on average $10,000 in health care costs, as opposed to $2500 for the average population. As more people get older, and more people retire, you can see that this will cause a financial strain on the system. A contribution system which reflected the actual consumption would aliviate the need to depend upon a larger and larger working base.

1) I'm not a big fan of government subsidies period. Baby bonuses and tax breaks have always struck me as low-income vote getters rather than constructive ways to encourage population growth. I don't think there's any reasonable way for the federal government to spend enough money to intice native born Canadians to increase birthrates to an effective level, at the expense of our more modern, low birthrate lifestyle.

I agree. More over I am philosophically opposed to government intervening in personal choices.

If you are prepared to live with the consequences I outlined in answer 2, then limiting immigration isn't a problem. Otherwise, we have to rely immigration to maintain our current standard of living. It's as simple as that. Being as I'm in no hurry to make those kinds of drastic changes, I happen to view immigration as a good thing. Even unproductive immigrants have needs that require spending, and spur the economy. I don't believe the old trope about lazy immigrants sucking up welfare money - sure, living on welfare in Canada is better than busting your ass in Bombay (or at least it used to be) but if busting your ass in Canada can make you and your family rich, why not? That's the message I've gotten from all of the immigrants I've known.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. In general immigration has beneficial aspects. It gives us access to a trained labour pool, who for the most part can be quickly deployed into the workforce. (As opposed to a new born who will take 25 years or so to hit the labour market)

The caveat here is that we need to be selective on immigration. We need immigrants who have the skills and will fill a need in the workforce. An open-door policy without selection helps no-one. Without selection, many of the immigrants may not be employable in the Canadian labour market and may add to the social burden all taxpayers will have to bear.

One interesting note is the government has not really considered other labour options. For example in the Middle East, much of the labour pool is made up of temporary workers. This labour fills an immediate need, but is not intended to have permanent residency status. For these workers, the benefit is that they economically can earn and save more than they would in their home country. The benefit for the hosting country is that they have a workforce supplement which aids their economy but they don’t need to be quite as selective as there is no danger that they are accepting these workers as permanent residents.

[Renegade]

BHS and RB,

I want to thank you for the civility of the debate. It has been free of the personal insults and name-calling which has been an all too frequent occurence with some posters on this forum.

While I may disagree with some of your points-of-view, you have always presented them professionally and without personal attacks. For this I thank you.

[BHS]

The caveat here is that we need to be selective on immigration. We need immigrants who have the skills and will fill a need in the workforce. An open-door policy without selection helps no-one. Without selection, many of the immigrants may not be employable in the Canadian labour market and may add to the social burden all taxpayers will have to bear.

One interesting note is the government has not really considered other labour options. For example in the Middle East, much of the labour pool is made up of temporary workers. This labour fills an immediate need, but is not intended to have permanent residency status. For these workers, the benefit is that they economically can earn and save more than they would in their home country. The benefit for the hosting country is that they have a workforce supplement which aids their economy but they don’t need to be quite as selective as there is no danger that they are accepting these workers as permanent residents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As to your first paragraph, my first thought is, "Someone's gotta work the nightshift at McDonalds, and I hope it's not my kid." Simple as that. There are always more positions for unskilled labour than trained labour. These jobs are appealing to hard-working immigrants who didn't have education opportunities in their country of origin. The trick is to maintain a social welfare net that adequately cares for the needs of the truly needy, but isn't so lavish as to take away from the appeal of these unskilled labour positions.

My resonse carries into your second paragraph. Countries in the ME get away with temporary immigrant labour because they're absolutely brutal in the way they treat these people. After Gulf War I Kuwait expelled half a million Palestinian Arabs guest workers outright, because they had tended to be supportive of Saddam during the annexation. And you can ask Bill Sampson how the Saudis treat their guest workers.

Further to this, you should take into consideration the problems that France is experiencing with it's North African ethnic population. True, these people are French citizens. But their forebearers were brought into France specifically to work in low income jobs and weren't expected to intigrate into the larger French population. This was not expected to be a problem, but clearly it is. Recognizing that there's a need for low skilled immigrant labour is fine, but a country is better off in the long run treating immigrants as full citizens instead of a stop-gap labour problem solution.

(Note that Germany has a similar, if less severe, problem with it's Turkish population. Note too that Canada already does the same thing - I live in a part of Ontario with a lot of fruit production. Picking fruit is a terrible job, and for the most part the only people who are willing to do it are Jamaican guest workers. This goes against the rest of my post, but my saving grace is that the guest workers in our case are limited to farm work during the summer months, and number around 19000 as opposed to hundreds of thousands. That, and the fact we have accepted far more immigrants from Jamaica than guest workers.)

[BHS]

BHS and RB,

I want to thank you for the civility of the debate. It has been free of the personal insults and name-calling which has been an all too frequent occurence with some posters on this forum.

While I may disagree with some of your points-of-view, you have always presented them professionally and without personal attacks. For this I thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

De nada. Thank you too.

[RB]

Renegade

Sorry, I did not reply earlier - I wasn't paying attention and did not see the reply

I question what population size would be good enough for Canada 10 million, and then even a futher reduction to 4 million.

I imagine for now that the urgency is how we respond to identifiable and distinguishable changes we can see right before the eyes. Then, does Canada intend to be competitive in the marketplace, and would like to revel in some political world powers, and sustain their good social well being. But then perhaps Canadians would like to see themselves belonging to a pride of impecunious countries in gloomy dire straits.

Next, my question is: Would you like to shape the future now, or deal with the consequences now?

Firstly, we are going to have 20% of the population who ages to 65 by 2030 and out of this 68% of them are women. This is an elderly population, old people if it makes it graphic. Old people come with additional health care cost and a cost to the economy - find women especially - they make a special visit to the doctor for "him" to assure them all is well.

Note also these folks will not contribute to production any longer, so who will?. Look, the production argument is real, say rich older workers have skipped out to invest and purchase new machinery but average output per hour increased a total of just 0.1 percent in 2003 and 2004, essentially zero productivity growth.

That argument is about cost and money.

Secondly, more money. We have some threats rising as in economic super powers rising in China, India and Brazil. There is a demographics of economic powers shifting from countries and also people. In China, a fast developing middleclass set of people are rising armed also with political sensibilities. I need not tell you the correlation between economic power and political influential power.

Look at these statistics of 2004 as a measure by purchasing power parity.

USA, 5% of world population with 20% of global economy

China, India 40% of world population with 20% of global economy

My argument continues that if Canada aims to become smaller in population, we would liken to the USA as usual to carry the burden of Canada in order to remain competitive no? Be assured you definitely won't need people for an army.

I would more like to see USA, Canada, Mexico and the South American countries form a bloc trading group for sheer size to compete with Europe and Asia.

From the standpoint of global economic and political power the question remains as to how you respond?

I would reckon some added population beyond the natural rate.

So, now in order to motivate women to have children there must be incentives and rewards besides having a husband who agrees it is time to have the first child.

I feel government intervention is necessary to plan population growth - they spend money bringing in immigrants to teach them English and spend our tax dollars to retrain folks who have never contributed to the economy, they try their best to spend money on foreigners to become comfortable and settle them in developed world - and the result - rates of unemployment remains staggering over 20% for groups of immigrants.

What is so wrong with giving benefits to Canadian women to entice them to have children that will be successful in Canada.

The current birth rate is low even for a natural rate.

Well, Canada the call is for investment in baby making programs, plus investment in educating the workforce to compete globally as a SMART-COUNTRY.

[scribblet]

IMHO we don't need any more people. More people means more pollution, more land paved over for housing, more consumption of natural resources etc. etc. Personally I believe that overpopulation is the root cause of many of the world problems.

[Renegade]

I question what population size would be good enough for Canada 10 million, and then even a futher reduction to 4 million.

I don't know the answer to that one either, but in my view it is not a number but a range. I don't know that we would be any worse off with 10 million then we would be with 30 million. Conversely I'm pretty sure that if our popluation doubled to 60 million there would be additional pressure on things we take for granted. (Like a house with a backyard).

I imagine for now that the urgency is how we respond to identifiable and distinguishable changes we can see right before the eyes.  Then, does Canada intend to be competitive in the marketplace, and would like to revel in some political world powers, and sustain their good social well being.  But then perhaps Canadians would like to see themselves belonging to a pride of impecunious countries in gloomy dire straits.

Frankly I don't see Canada aspiring to be a world power anytime soon. I don't see any will for a national goal to increase population so that we become a "world power". Conversely, I don't see a reduced population as "belonging to a pride of impecunious countries in gloomy dire straits". There are many countries who have substantially smaller populations than Canada (as examples, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zeland, Australia) and they do quite well despite their smaller population

Next, my question is: Would you like to shape the future now, or deal with the consequences now?

Firstly, we are going to have 20% of the population who ages to 65 by 2030 and out of this 68% of them are women.  This is an elderly population, old people if it makes it graphic.  Old people come with additional health care cost and a cost to the economy - find women especially - they make a special visit to the doctor for "him" to assure them all is well. 

No doubt these are issues. But in my view the issue to fix is one in how we pay for these programs. Why not encourage (force?) people to save now for their retirement? Perhaps they need to save more for additional health care costs so they shoudl have more in their retirement nest egg and not count on an ever increasing population base to support them. Afterall this is nothing but a Ponzi scheme which will eventually collapse.

Note also these folks will not contribute to production any longer, so who will?.  Look, the production argument is real, say rich older workers have skipped out to invest and purchase new machinery but average output per hour increased a total of just 0.1 percent in 2003 and 2004, essentially zero productivity growth. 

First, productivity measures inputs and outputs. In your example if people are replaced by machines, the people will no longer be counted as inputs and productivity will actually increase.

Second, so what if these people are no longer contributing to production. Surely what they ought to be doing is saving during their productive years for those years they are unproductive.

That argument is about cost and money.

Secondly, more money. We have some threats rising as in economic super powers rising in China, India and Brazil.  There is a demographics of economic powers shifting from countries and also people.  In China, a fast developing middleclass set of people are rising armed also with political sensibilities.  I need not tell you the correlation between economic power and political influential power.

Look at these statistics of 2004 as a measure by purchasing power parity. 

USA, 5% of world population with 20% of global economy

China, India 40% of world population with 20% of global economy

My argument continues that if Canada aims to become smaller in population, we would liken to the USA as usual to carry the burden of Canada in order to remain competitive no? Be assured you definitely won't need people for an army.

So your argument is that we ought to engage in a "population race" with China, India and Brazil to stay competitive?

Frankly such a course of action if conducted on a world scale would be as destructive as the arms race has been.

Despite having the largest population for quite some time, India and China still do not have the same standard of living as many western countries with much smaller populations. Why?

I would more like to see USA, Canada, Mexico and the South American countries form a bloc trading group for sheer size to compete with Europe and Asia.

From the standpoint of global economic and political power the question remains as to how you respond?

I don't disagree with you here. But what you are pointing out is a solution to a problem you brought up. It is the same conclusion individual countries in Europe came to, because each has a small population and would lack power standing alone. What your solution points to is that it is not necessary to have a large population to have sufficient power to be successful. Trading blocks are one way a country can thrive despite having a small population.

I would reckon some added population beyond the natural rate.

So, now in order to motivate women to have children there must be incentives and rewards besides having a husband who agrees it is time to have the first child. 

Again, I have not reached the same conclusion as you that additional population is desirable or even necessary, so I can't agree that we need to motivate women to have children.

I feel government intervention is necessary to plan population growth -  they spend money bringing in immigrants to teach them English and spend our tax dollars to retrain folks who have never contributed to the economy, they try their best to spend money on foreigners to become comfortable and settle them in developed world - and the result - rates of unemployment remains staggering over 20% for groups of immigrants. 

No doubt we have problems with our immigration filtering system. In my view we should be filtering out immigrants who can't speak either English or French or don't have the appropriate skills.

IF we take the right immigrants they can positively contribute to our economy. The advantage is that with properly skilled immigrants, you have a ready trained population which you can deploy into the workforce. Canada has not paid for their training but would recieve the economic benefit of their output. With children, Canada would have to invest considerable sums in their education and training, and would not see the economic benefit for 20+ years.

What is so wrong with giving benefits to Canadian women to entice them to have children that will be successful in Canada.

First, there is no gurantee that children will be successful. A child is somewhat a crapshoot. You can give them all the right attention and training, and some will turn out successful and others will not.

Second, the choice to have or not have children is the parent's alone. They alone should bear the economic responsibility for their upbringing.

The current birth rate is low even for a natural rate.

Well, Canada the call is for investment in baby making programs, plus investment in educating the workforce to compete globally as a  SMART-COUNTRY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is short-sighted to presume that larger population = better country. Maybe the right approach is to encourage women to have LESS kids so that they can focus their attention on the kids they have, and we can have less dysfunctional individuals in society.

In my view the strongest argument for not investing in such programs is that the government has no business doing so. Having kids is a private choice with private responsibilities, and the government should stay out.

[RB]

Renegade

you took that post apart - very good

I, of course will duly reply

[RB]

In the book of Genesis there is something about go forth and multiply, and replenish the earth

OK this discussion is still with why the government should respond to population growth?

Like I said the aged population will depend on a very smaller and a much younger population to go to work. And as the population continues to age with less supply of people to maintain the systems there will be diminishing revenues for pensions and the revenue pool.

The white population will continue to decline from 75% to 53% in 2050. The opinion formers will be of non-European - will Canada still be one of the leaders in wealth I question

OK, I wish to theorize a population link to the scarcity of children.

Say now that there is no substitute for children and they are therefore superior quality goods. And that having children depends of the household income.

A truth emerges that currently, the demand for children is elastic as it relates to income and consumption. I mean can I throw around concepts without going on with explanation?

OK here is what I am alluding to:

1) children are higher quality now than then

2) quantity of children is not now

3) demand of child services has increased and has a relation with income

4) decline rates of fertility looks for quality

5) high quality of children is more expensive

Did you see that children are more expensive when there is less population?

This discussion have not address the amounts of money that is spent avoiding how not to have children. I mean look at the amount of money spent on contraceptives. Then add to the much money we spend on helping immigrants.

For Canada we are looking 2 generations from now a dismal rich country in retreat.

Now did you consider how old people will vote

- they are hostile towards their savings and will dominate the polls

- they will accept authority

- low tolerance for unconventional behavior

A return to Victorian age if you wish

The muslim poplulation is rising faster than in other group, perhaps we are not concern about Muslim fundamentalism

It is easy not to be concern about population decline - there was never an experience of slow, steady decline in an industrial country. But with folks dying and aging we will have a much lower capacity for growth and working off the wealth.

Did you notice how we are becoming accustom to part-time, casual work. This is good because you are a rich countries you will be living off your savings?.