No new money for immigration

[Renegade]

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

Maybe so, but whoever wrote that probably didn't envision that the multitudes of people populating the earth would become the greatest threat to its very existance.

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.

I get the point that the current system of supporting the aging population depends upon an incresasing working population base. What you have not addressed is why we should continue to perpetuate this pyramid scheme instead of moving to a self-sustaining scheme of each person saving for their own retirement. Surely you would agree that a financing scheme which does not depend upon the variability of future population growth is better than one that does.

Look at a company defined-benefit pension scheme. Each year a company is supposed to contribute to the plan sufficient to offset future liabilities. (Yes, I'm aware that some companies don't do this, but they are supposed to). These schemes do not depend upon the growth of their employee base or increased future profits, simply because these are risky assumptions to base it on. It seems that only our government is foolhardy enough to create a funded-as-you-go scheme.

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

So is your point that if the white population declines in relation to non-European population that Canada thus not be a leader of wealth? If that is your point it would seem to be a rasist presumption.

It matters not whether Canada is 75% white, 53% white, or 1% white. The population mix has changed through history and will continue to change. Why is one mix better than the other?

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

Yes the days when a family had 10 children are gone. The face of families have changed. Maybe 75 years ago large families were valued because it was a source of security for the retirement of the parents. Maybe the wealth of society today, no longer necessitiates that source of security.

I agree with you our children recieve increased investment then ever before. Bringing up a child requies and investment in childcare, education, no end of extra-cirricular activites, medical and dental bills, shelter and clothing, entertainment, and the list goes on. We the parents have made choices. We (the parents) value having that larger house or extra car or vacation every year, and we are willing to trade-off having more children for that prividge.

So, yes I agree with you that the cost of having children is more now than it has been before, mostly because our expectations of what we need to provide kids is more now than before. So this higher cost will lead to people having less children.

So what? In my mind that is a benefit not a drawback.

[Renegade]

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

The population in Canada is geographically clustered in large population centres. I can't see how increasing the number of children in those population centres introduces any futrther economy of scale which will lead to any substantial reduction on the cost of having a child. (Do you really think if we had double the number of kids, suddenly the cost of education per child is going to substantially decrease?)

The expense in children is got everything to do with parential expectations. Where 20 years ago a parent would be content to leave a child with a neighbour when they went to work, now they expect to leave a child in a the custody of ECC graduates in a dedicated child-care facility. Of course the costs are not the same. The same analogy applies for virtually every aspect of the cost of bringing up a child.

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.

So what. It's people's money, if they want to buy contraceptives they can. If fact if they are not willing or ready to make the choice as parents it's probably a good investment.

As I've already said regarding immigrants, if it were up to me I'd be more selective about the immigrants allowed to settle in Canada and I would change the funding model. Despite this, in general immigrants provide a ready talent pool and the economy benefits more than it invests.

When you calculate how much the country spends on immigrants should you not also factor in how much the country collects in tax dollars those immigrants generate?

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

I don't share your pessimistic view. I have not seen any evidence provided by you or others that Canada suddenly will end up in poverty because it doesn't encourage population growth.

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

This is the most novel argument yet. That we should encourage a young population so that they are not outnumbered by cranky old farts.

The fact is that govenmental policies will be such to cater to their support base. If that support base is in the aged population, so be it. I can just as easily argue that the older population has the wisdom of experience, that they the lack of radicalness provides a smoother transition in society and thus they are a stabilizing force in society.

I can equally argue that what if you have a large young population, and they decide as a voting block, they are no longer interested in supporting old age security, subsidized drugs, or expensive medical procedures which mostly cater to the aged. What will you do then?

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

As with any religion there are radicals. Most muslims promote values which are very consistent with those of our society. No doubt we must limit extremist behaviour which violates our laws, however to condem one religious group based upon the actions of a few is distinctly racist.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "working off the wealth". There is a simple way to ensure your lifelong viability. Sustain yourself and don't be a burden on society. You have productive years and unproductive ones. Provide a nest-egg for yourself during your productive years to sustain yourself in your unproductive ones. Then you can stop worrying about the growth and productivity of society.

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?.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who did you mean by "we"? Yes companies rely on part-time workers because it offers a more cost-effective and flexible labour solution than full time workers. For many workers it also offers a solution. Did you notice how many older people work part time, both for something to do and to supplement their savings, pensions?

In the end your retirement planning is up to YOU and YOU alone. You choose your employment choice whether part or full time. Make a choice which provides best for your current and future needs.

[Renegade]

The G&M had an interesting story on immigration today: Is our immigration policy the best one for Canada?

However, a key flaw in the plan has emerged, largely because immigrants are no longer able to catch up to their Canadian-born counterparts. By 2002, Canada had stopped selecting immigrants based on a need for their occupation and shifted to the "best and brightest" model. The theory was, highly educated immigrants with an ability to speak English or French would excel in Canada's knowledge-based economy.

The problem, says Prof. Reitz, is that newcomers must compete with well-educated Canadians, which is difficult when their foreign credentials are not accepted.

Another serious problem is the false expectations created by the polite fiction that Canada maintains a 60-40 split between economic immigrants, and family members and refugees. Last year, of the 235,000 newcomers, 56 per cent were counted as economic class. That number included principal applicants (55,000) and their spouses and children (78,500). However, only the principal applicants, and not their spouses, had to pass through the point system, which ensures they are well-educated and speak either French or English. If only principal applicants are counted, economic immigrants comprise just 23 per cent of the total annual intake of immigrants.

The preponderance of family-class immigrants lowers the economic performance of all newcomers, since the former group does not have to pass the points criteria designed to weed out those unlikely to succeed in the Canadian labour market, argues Herbert Grubel, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University and former Reform Party MP.

This has also led to unrealistic expectations in the public's mind regarding immigrants' performance. If only one fifth of immigrants are chosen for their economic potential, should we be surprised that overall, it is taking years for them to catch up to Canadians in their earning power?

[BubberMiley]

So Leafless, you wrote:

tml12

On top of this immigrants take advantage of our Charter and many never do become Canadian...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And in another thread, wrote:

So in fact at this time since I excluded 'love' as a proper word to describe ones feelings towards the country and the Liberals have destroyed the ingredients for one being patriotic towards this country, so at this time I can describe myself with little loyality left to support this country period.

So I can't resist. Just where do you come from?

[RB]

Renegade - Posted Dec 12 2005, 10:34 AM

Maybe so, but whoever wrote that probably didn't envision that the multitudes of people populating the earth would become the greatest threat to its very existence.

Uhm lots of people live and breathe by the bible – it is the most important book of all times. You don’t want to be seeming to have an anti-Christian enlightenment agenda now do you?

Are you thinking that following the bible could demonstrate how immoral a person can become especially if he seriously took the literal interpretation of ethics directed and recommended in the bible?

What you have not addressed is why we should continue to perpetuate this pyramid scheme instead of moving to a self-sustaining scheme of each person saving for their own retirement. Surely you would agree that a financing scheme which does not depend upon the variability of future population growth is better than one that does.

A layman’s response – I don’t believe that if you give an average Canadian their 700$/yr CPP dollars they will invest it for the future. Look, Harper is relating to middleclass people with his income of 255k, imagine where the poor line falls @ 100k?.

Consider which average Canadian would be interested in the following

- inflation

- interest rates

- stocks, mutual funds

- economic uncertainty

- unemployment

The percentage of Canadian that invest in the markets would be less than 5%

I am afraid you are giving us an argument from a point of view of economic good times without contingencies to protect Canadians from hardship. A national system of social security is needed if you did not want to decimate a country. The current system does protect workers and their families from loss of income due to retirement, death, disability, plus CPP recipients receive amounts based on their contribution

I can't see how increasing the number of children in those population centres introduces any futrther economy of scale which will lead to any substantial reduction on the cost of having a child.

Economies of scales in country in not realized until you have a population of 60 m

Recapping, what you are saying is that people should have individual freedoms to make their choices and therefore face their costs, and reap their benefits based on their decision to have children.

So, you are not convinced that the government needs to be involved with population policies.

But, lets try again, so first we elect governments to do the correct thing and then the government decides what the correct thing to do is. There is something called optimum population size different from the natural rate of growth. Say we give the parents rights to control the number of children therefore the government has no control over population size so now there is no optimum size.

Plus, parents only think in terms of one generation and is less concern about population, a good government would think in terms of 2-3 generations. There is something call planning.

Look, when a child is born the government suffers a cost for compulsory school, but that child grows up and becomes an adult and will pay taxes for other children to attend school. If parents see there is addition cost to having one more child they will not take a burden. The mere conclusion is children are inferior goods.

There is a negative co-relation between income and children and children are found to be inferior to golf, cars, vacations, business etc.

Look at this scenario:

According to your prior arguments parents will decide to have children based on the cost and affordability. But, also as consumers we are irrational in our behaviors and it has a random effect on population size (probably catastrophic). A government intervention, however clumsy would work to produce a balance in population.

Mincer's numbers would confirm that with subsidy there is an increase in population. But also low income parents would behave erratic with such a system to almost 20% in population size.

Immigration bring wages down - the Canadian system is not very accommodating or liken to new Canadians.

[PocketRocket]

For those who argue against ANY immigration, I say this; hands up everyone whose ancestors do not originally come from abroad.

Hmmm. No so many.

[Renegade]

Uhm lots of people live and breathe by the bible – it is the most important book of all times.  You don’t want to be seeming to have an anti-Christian enlightenment agenda now do you?

Are you thinking that following the bible could demonstrate how immoral a person can become especially if he seriously took the literal interpretation of ethics directed and recommended in the bible?

No I'm certainly proposing an anti-Christian agenda. What I am saying is that we live in a secular society and can't base our policies upon a literal intertration of the Bible, Koran, or any other religious book.

A layman’s response – I don’t believe that if you give an average Canadian their 700$/yr CPP dollars they will invest it for the future.  Look, Harper is relating to middleclass people with his income of 255k, imagine where the poor line falls @ 100k?. 

Consider which average Canadian would be interested in the following

- inflation

- interest rates

- stocks, mutual funds

- economic uncertainty

- unemployment

The percentage of Canadian that invest in the markets would be less than 5%

I am afraid you are giving us an argument from a point of view of economic good times without contingencies to protect Canadians from hardship.  A national system of social security is needed if you did not want to decimate a country.  The current system does protect workers and their families from loss of income due to retirement, death, disability, plus CPP recipients receive amounts based on their contribution

Your point is taken and I agree that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible enough to look after their own long term self interest. The question becomes what do we as a society do about it.

One part of me says that if they do save less than they should (say 5% and they really need 10%) they should suffer the consequences of their own neglect. (ie poverty in their old age).

Another part of me says that if we really feel there will be a segment of the population who won't, of their own accord, do the right thing, then maybe they should be "forced" to do the right thing via legislation. What do I mean by this? Right now RRSPs are voluntary. If we really think they are necessary for retirement, make them mandatory, and make the minimium percentage contribution whatever we think is required to sustain a person upon retirement (say 10%). Many other countries do this so it is not without precident. (Its usually called a provedent fund).

And no, I am not giving an argument for economic good times. A person will be productive in the workforce for roughly 40 years. They will see both economic good times and economic bad times. If they are contributing a percentage of income, that amount will be greater in good times and less in bad times, but overall should be sufficient to sustain them through retirement.

Economies of scales in country in not realized until you have a population of 60 m

Can you please explain how you come by this number?

Recapping, what you are saying is that people should have individual freedoms to make their choices and therefore face their costs, and reap their benefits based on their decision to have children.

So, you are not convinced that the government needs to be involved with population policies. 

Yes, that is an accurate assessment of my position.

But, lets try again, so first we elect governments to do the correct thing and then the government decides what the correct thing to do is.  There is something called optimum population size different from the natural rate of growth. Say we give the parents rights to control the number of children therefore the government has no control over population size so now there is no optimum size.

So how is it that the optimum population size is determined? Is it 60M? Is that true for any country? If so are you suggesting that countries >60M should encourage their citizens to decrease their birthrate?

Plus, parents only think in terms of one generation and is less concern about population, a good government would think in terms of 2-3 generations.  There is something call planning.

Look, when a child is born the government suffers a cost for compulsory school, but that child grows up and becomes an adult and will pay taxes for other children to attend school.  If parents see there is addition cost to having one more child they will not take a burden.  The mere conclusion is children are inferior goods.

There is a negative co-relation between income and children and children are found to be inferior to golf, cars, vacations, business etc.

Your argument here is that children are an "investment" that will pay long term dividends, and parents won't make that investment because they only are looking short term. This argument means that we keep overtaxing our kids and future generations as a way to get a suitable return on our investment. This is something I am admantly opposed to. Further there is no gurantee of any return on investment at all. Kids can get educated and leave the country or even be a drain on social systems rather than a contributor to the costs.

In any case even a "stable" population (ie no growth) means that there is sufficient working people to maintain current services. (As long as we fix the Ponzi schemes I described above).

Look at this scenario:

According to your prior arguments parents will decide to have children based on the cost and affordability. But, also as consumers we are irrational in our behaviors and it has a random effect on population size (probably catastrophic).  A government intervention, however clumsy would work to produce a balance in population.

Actually I disagree that the behaviour is irrational. In fact I think it is perfectly rational. The effect on population size is quite predictable and not random at all. Actuarial science studies this. The government, insurance companies, etc, employ actuaries to help them predict population growth and lifetime trends. If population growth and declines are predictable, it is also quite possible to adjust our policies to accomodate long term population growth and declines.

What I'm saying here is that in my view they government should do is react to long term population growth or decline patterns, and not try and manipulate the trend by introducing incentives.

Mincer's numbers would confirm that with subsidy there is an increase in population.  But also low income parents would behave erratic with such a system to almost 20% in population size.

A subsidy is most likely to entice a low income parent to have a child. These are also the people least likely to be able to afford a child. So why should we want to do that?

Immigration bring wages down - the Canadian system is not very accommodating or liken to new Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That depends. Unchecked immigration will bring down wages because it will flood the labour pool. Targeted immigration will reduce inflation by preventing spikes in wages in areas of employment shortages.

Yes, in some ways Canada does not do a very good job in immigration, however those are the issues to address and we should not paint all immigration negatively simply because we have failed to address those issues.

[Renegade]

For those who argue against ANY immigration, I say this; hands up everyone whose ancestors do not originally come from abroad.

Hmmm. No so many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PR, this is hardly a relevant issue. When we or our ancestors immigrated to Canada our perspective was whether it was best for ourselves. Now that we are here we are looking at it from the perspective of if it is beneficial to Canada. Further, times change. Because immigration was good once, doesn't make it good always.

To suggest that people should be for immigration because they or their ancestors were once immigrants, is akin to suggesting that anyone who was once a smoker should be an advocate for smoking.

[PocketRocket]

For those who argue against ANY immigration, I say this; hands up everyone whose ancestors do not originally come from abroad.

Hmmm. No so many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PR, this is hardly a relevant issue.

I disagree. I believe it is supremely relevant. We are a nation founded on people looking for a better life.

If you'll notice, what I specified was "against ANY immigration". As in "any and all".

We do, perhaps, need a better screening process, but immigration has been the lifeblood of Canada since its inception.

When we or our ancestors immigrated to Canada our perspective was whether it was best for ourselves. Now that we are here we are looking at it from the perspective of if it is beneficial to Canada.  Further, times change. Because immigration was good once, doesn't make it good always.

So let's turn it around. When our ancestors immigrated, it was because it was to their benefit to do so.

But was it to Canada's benefit???

I suppose you'd have to ask the native population, and you just KNOW what their answer would be.

Same stands now, But with proper screening, immigration SHOULD be to Canada's benefit.

To suggest that people should be for immigration because they or their ancestors were once immigrants, is akin to suggesting that anyone who was once a smoker should be an advocate for smoking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but now I have to say that this analogy is not relevant for a very simple reason; a person may outgrow his/her bad habits, just as a child outgrows sucking his/her thumb.

[Renegade]

PR, this is hardly a relevant issue.

I disagree. I believe it is supremely relevant. We are a nation founded on people looking for a better life.

If you'll notice, what I specified was "against ANY immigration". As in "any and all".

We do, perhaps, need a better screening process, but immigration has been the lifeblood of Canada since its inception.

I understand your qualification that you addressed it to those "against ANY immigration". My point is that one's stand on immigration is not relevant to one's origin.

When we or our ancestors immigrated to Canada our perspective was whether it was best for ourselves. Now that we are here we are looking at it from the perspective of if it is beneficial to Canada.  Further, times change. Because immigration was good once, doesn't make it good always.

So let's turn it around. When our ancestors immigrated, it was because it was to their benefit to do so.

But was it to Canada's benefit???

I suppose you'd have to ask the native population, and you just KNOW what their answer would be.

Same stands now, But with proper screening, immigration SHOULD be to Canada's benefit.

Yes when our ancestors immigrated it was to their benefit to do so and it probably was not to Canada's benefit as any Native Canadian will attest. Unfortunately the Native Canadians at the time lacked ability to enforce their policy. That is not true today. The current residents can to a substantial degree enforce immigration policy. Proper immigration should be mutually beneficial (ie both the immigrant and the recipient country). If there fails to be common ground of mutual benefit, then it is perfectly ok to oppose immigration, regardless of one's background.

As you can see by my posts previously, I am very much in favour of selective and screened immigration. My point is simply that ancesteral immigration background is not relevant to that position.

To suggest that people should be for immigration because they or their ancestors were once immigrants, is akin to suggesting that anyone who was once a smoker should be an advocate for smoking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but now I have to say that this analogy is not relevant for a very simple reason; a person may outgrow his/her bad habits, just as a child outgrows sucking his/her thumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, maybe you'll like this analogy better. It is akin to saying that if you are black you should be an advocate for affirmative action.

[PocketRocket]

I understand your qualification that you addressed it to those "against ANY immigration".  My point is that one's stand on immigration is not relevant to one's origin.

Perhaps, but it should be somewhat tempered by the knowledge thereof.

Yes when our ancestors immigrated it was to their benefit to do so and it probably was not to Canada's benefit as any Native Canadian will attest.  Unfortunately the Native Canadians at the time lacked ability to enforce their policy.

Actually, I don't believe they had a policy. The word "policy" may not have even been invented at that point.

There was also a problem with the fact that there were no real means of communication other than mail at that point.

When you consider that the literacy rate back then was miniscule, and there was no written language among natives, it makes it kind of hard to make a policy common to all tribes/nations, let alone implement it.

But that's all water under the bridge now. All the king's horses and all the king's men.....

That is not true today. The current residents can to a substantial degree enforce immigration policy. Proper immigration should be mutually beneficial (ie both the immigrant and the recipient country).  If there fails to be common ground of mutual benefit, then it is perfectly ok to oppose immigration, regardless of one's background.

I have no problem with this line of thought. my objection is to those who would advocate a complete end to immigration.

As you can see by my posts previously, I am very much in favour of selective and screened immigration. My point is simply that ancesteral immigration background is not relevant to that position.

Well, we agree to disagree on that point. But we DO agree on screening.

OK, maybe you'll like this analogy better. It is akin to saying that if you are black you should be an advocate for affirmative action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, next time I wake up in the morning and discover I'm black, I'll get right on it.

[RB]

Can you please explain how you come by this number?

So how is it that the optimum population size is determined? Is it 60M? Is that true for any country? If so are you suggesting that countries >60M should encourage their citizens to decrease their birthrate?

I am working with the Canadian population.

Population in Canada in the year 2070

Quote

Canada like in other countries is tightly bound with population growth rate. Canada's natural growth rate is 0.4% (percent), but Canada's overall growth rate is 1.0%, due to Canada's immigration policies. It has been approximated that by 2070, Canada's population will double from 30 million to 60 million people in Canada. Unquote.

Doubling time and population growth

I wanted to supply a link for the 60 million.

But, I think I got my 60 m figures from Kendall - Sociology in our times, or a NAFTA economic journal. The economies of scales is a calculated figure I did for fun with my visiting brother – a mathematician, using analysis of squirrels to confirm along a diminishing curve the optimum population point

I will return later to reply to the rest of the post

[Renegade]

Population in Canada in the year 2070

Quote

Canada like in other countries is tightly bound with population growth rate. Canada's natural growth rate is 0.4% (percent), but Canada's overall growth rate is 1.0%, due to Canada's immigration policies. It has been approximated that by 2070, Canada's population will double from 30 million to 60 million people in Canada. Unquote. 

Doubling time and population growth

I wanted to supply a link for the 60 million.

RB, both of your sources discredit your position. The first source suggest that given current trends, Canada will reach 60 million by 2070. This is what you suggest is the "optimal" population. If so, and Canada is trending to a population increase anyway without intervention or incentives, why should the government intervene and incent further growth?

From your second source:

Increased population growth generally represents problems for a country - it means increased need for food, infrastructure, and services. These are expenses that most high-growth countries have little ability to provide today, let alone if population rises dramatically.

So I don't see from the sources you cite support for your argument, and in fact reinforces my position.

But, I think I got my 60 m figures from Kendall - Sociology in our times, or a NAFTA economic journal.  The economies of scales is a calculated figure I did for fun with my visiting brother – a mathematician, using analysis of squirrels to confirm along a diminishing curve the optimum population point

I will return later to reply to the rest of the post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, thanks for taking the time to reply.

I'm a little unclear on your methology. Are you saying you have extrapolated an analysis of the maximium number of squirrels to a human population? If so then I have to ask the question when you state that 60M is an optimal population, it is optimal for what?

[RB]

Renegade,Dec 29 2005, 10:22 AM]

RB,Dec 28 2005, 06:05 PM]Population in Canada in the year 2070

Quote

Canada like in other countries is tightly bound with population growth rate. Canada's natural growth rate is 0.4% (percent), but Canada's overall growth rate is 1.0%, due to Canada's immigration policies. It has been approximated that by 2070, Canada's population will double from 30 million to 60 million people in Canada. Unquote. 

Doubling time and population growth

I wanted to supply a link for the 60 million.

RB, both of your sources discredit your position. The first source suggest that given current trends, Canada will reach 60 million by 2070. This is what you suggest is the "optimal" population. If so, and Canada is trending to a population increase anyway without intervention or incentives, why should the government intervene and incent further growth?

I don't think I have discredit my position - The population growth is still .4% and the other growth amounts due to interventions such as immigration. But, we will have to account for migration from Canada to elsewhere such as the US. The 60,000 new immigrants that was the origin of the thread was cancelled.

Governments will need to take responsibility to find new ways to increase the population since immigrants are really getting failing report: shooting in Toronto the most recent, Muslim riots all over the place are making folks agitated.

Perhaps they will try my solutions of encouraging Canadian women to have more children. Women will be encouraged if they can see the benefits. See those who have been putting off having kids taking advantage of some legislation built into employment laws. Japan will be having a very old population and guess who has smarten up - the government.

To achieve optimum population a country needs a fertility rate of 2.1; this is a level of replacement to guarantee a continuing population. To adjust the optimum population in a country, it will have to aim for above or below a fertility level of 2.1. To achieve optimum population, a country must change some of the following dimensions to lower or increase there fertility rate, before they can achieve optimum population. From Wikipedia.

The ideal population is 60 m that Canada and her resources can accommodate, unless you start developing more of the land.

[Renegade]

I don't think I have discredit my position - The population growth is still .4% and the other growth amounts due to interventions such as immigration.  But, we will have to account for migration from Canada to elsewhere such as the US. The 60,000 new immigrants that was the origin of the thread was cancelled. 

Your sources cite a 1% "overall growth rate" so as such it includes both immigrants and emmigrants. The net of it is, even by your sources Canada's population is growing.

Governments will need to take responsibility to find new ways to increase the population since immigrants are really getting failing report: shooting in Toronto the most recent, Muslim riots all over the place are making folks agitated.

So if I understand your argument it is that population growth by native-born Canadians is "good" and population growth by immigration is "bad". I would very much dispute this. I don't think taking a few isolated cases of immigrant violence demonstrates that ALL immigration is bad. You don't account for the billions of dollars of wealth that immigrants have brought and generated in the country or the untold number of jobs they have created. I would agree that Canada can be more selective on the immigrants it allows, and it can overhaul its immigration system, but to denounce immigration on the basis of the actions of a few is short-sighted and paints a false picture.

Perhaps they will try my solutions of encouraging Canadian women to have more children.  Women will be encouraged if they can see the benefits. See those who have been putting off having kids taking advantage of some legislation built into employment laws.  Japan will be having a very old population and guess who has smarten up - the government.

There is already encouragement for parents to have kids via taxs benefits. (ie the Child Tax Benefit and the deduction for childcare).

Since you seem so anti-immigrant, maybe you can also see that incentives to have kids will also induce immigrants to have more kids. (In fact my guess is that due to cultural pressures, it will be the immigrants who take most advantage of any inducements).

To achieve optimum population a country needs a fertility rate of 2.1; this is a level of replacement to guarantee a continuing population. To adjust the optimum population in a country, it will have to aim for above or below a fertility level of 2.1. To achieve optimum population, a country must change some of the following dimensions to lower or increase there fertility rate, before they can achieve optimum population. From Wikipedia.

The ideal population is 60 m that Canada and her resources can accommodate, unless you start developing more of the land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The quote you reference is here: Optimum population

It defines optimium population as such:

Optimum population is where the amount of resources available in a country is equal to the country's population, so there are enough resources to maintain its population.

If we define optimium population as such I can see how you come to the 60M number. It would not be my definition of optimium population, afterall aren't we trying to figure out how many people we can cram onto a piece of land before it collapses?

Let me give you an example. If we can fit 15 people on to an elevator and still have the elevator operate is 15 the optimal number for the elevator? Sure it is if all we consider is the maximium number of people, but not if we consider the best experience of the individuals on the elevator.

This site defines Optimum population differently: An optimum population

The optimum population of a country is the one which is most likely to produce a good and sustainable quality of life for its inhabitants without adversely affecting the quality of life either of people who live in other countries or of people who will live in future times.

While their study was primarily focused on the UK, their conclusions were:

The UK population, by OPT's calculations, needs to be gradually reduced from 59 million to a maximum 30 million, which could be done without coercion on family size.

That right!!! The population needs to be reduced in order to reach an optimium number.

I don't know about you but I care very little for reaching a population level where we maximize the number of people Canada can support. I would much rather maxmimze the quality of life each of us can live. I have seen no evidence that increasing the population will increase any of our quality of lives.

[RB]

There is already encouragement for parents to have kids via taxs benefits. (ie the Child Tax Benefit and the deduction for childcare).

Stay at home parents might disagree with your encouragement. First they forgo their salaries and then there are no tax benefits such as a dependant or (childcare) offered for them to stay at home. The one year paternity leave is shared between the parents and I question how folks can survive on $414 per week.

Next, how come I never had access to this child tax benefit?

The tax system penalizes and punish working parents with these choices.

Instead of encourage couples to provide stability for the child, couples have to choose to live financially autonomous or give up their relationship - divorces have a large failure percentage attributed to financial difficulties.

Since you seem so anti-immigrant

I am not.

I am surprised when one skilled, qualified folk can just show up in a short period, gets disappointed, but a few months later an entire village arrives for more disappointments.

I am embittered about the immigration system because it never turned out right for myself. First, you are screwed, then you get screwed and then you screw-up.

I can tell you that I got married to a fellow from someplace else that I had to do “the” sponsorship since he was afterall now my spouse. Anyway, I when I found out I was pregnant right after the marriage I approach the embassy to see whether the fellow can show up early so that we can be together.

Well, I had to grin and bear my pregnancy alone. When my daughter was born, the 2 of us waited and waited. Well, 5 years later a stranger shows up. It really takes a long time for families to unite. Well admittingly people do change, I am maladjusted. So, my stranger headed off to the US for the next 5 years. Sad to say a marriage that never got reconciled – and I am never more regretful.

Anyway, I would like to see those showing up contribute to productivity and support the systems. Currently, immigrant communities have far higher unemployment rates than "Canadians" and unless these folks can find work and allowed to integrate into the mainstream culture they are hopelessly dependant on the government.

[rbacon]

How much money should the taxpayer have to cough up for immigrant's and refugee's. In 2002 by government stats we paid 22,000,000,000.00 to settle and assist immigrants. That is more than we pay for all of the Native programs combined. Maybe it is time to scale back immigration. Maybe immigrants should have to pay for healthcare for the first 10 years, until they have contibuted to the system. Maybe all extended class immigration should be cut off, completely? Immigration is not a right, it is a priveledge.

[PocketRocket]

In 2002 by government stats we paid 22,000,000,000.00 to settle and assist immigrants. That is more than we pay for all of the Native programs combined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please cite a source for this claim.

[Renegade]

Stay at home parents might disagree with your encouragement.  First they forgo their salaries and then there are no tax benefits such as a dependant or (childcare) offered for them to stay at home.  The one year paternity leave is shared between the parents and I question how folks can survive on $414 per week.

It is true that stay-at-home parents do not get the childcare deduction. The logic for the deduction is that a parent would not otherwise be able to earn income unless that parent paid someone to look after the child(ren). I can see an argmument can be made to allow the working spouse to pay the stay-at-home spouse an amount for looking after the child(ren) and thus claim the deduction.

While the stay-at-home parent cannot claim the childcare deduction, the earning spouse can claim the spousal amount. Something which is not available in general to two income families.

Next, how come I never had access to this child tax benefit? 

The benefit is geared to family income. The benefit is reduced as income increases and at a certain income cutoff no benefit is paid.

The tax system penalizes and punish working parents with these choices. 

Instead of encourage couples to provide stability for the child, couples have to choose to live financially autonomous or give up their relationship - divorces have a large failure percentage attributed to financial difficulties.

I have shown that the tax system has some benefits for parents. I would hardly characterize it as one which "penalizes and punishs working parents". In the end it is the choice of the parents to have the children and they, and not society or the tax system, should bear the financial consequences of that choice.

A large percentage of divorces are due to financial differences, not necessarily financial difficulties. There are very poor families who have stable relationships, and there are rich families with unstable ones. No doubt finances add to the pressures of life which may take their toll on a relationship. But in the end it is the couple's responsibility to manage. The couple may decide to overextend themselves by buying a house they can't afford, and it may lead to financial difficulties. We don't expect society to bail them out. Why should the choice to have children be different?

I am surprised when one skilled, qualified folk can just show up in a short period, gets disappointed, but a few months later an entire village arrives for more disappointments.

Anyway, I would like to see those showing up contribute to productivity and support the systems.  Currently, immigrant communities have far higher unemployment rates than "Canadians" and unless these folks can find work and allowed to integrate into the mainstream culture they are hopelessly dependant on the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd have to agree with you. Our immigration system is a mess. Fortunately it is fixable by changing some of the immigration policies, however we currently lack political will or guts to make the required changes.

I am embittered about the immigration system because it never turned out right for myself. First, you are screwed, then you get screwed and then you screw-up.

I can tell you that I got married to a fellow from someplace else that I had to do “the” sponsorship since he was afterall now my spouse.  Anyway, I when I found out I was pregnant right after the marriage I approach the embassy to see whether the fellow can show up early so that we can be together. 

Well, I had to grin and bear my pregnancy alone.  When my daughter was born, the 2 of us waited and waited.  Well, 5 years later a stranger shows up. It really takes a long time for families to unite. Well admittingly people do change, I am maladjusted.  So, my stranger headed off to the US for the next 5 years. Sad to say a marriage that never got reconciled – and I am never more regretful. 

I'm so sorry for what you went through. I can see why your experience has made you angry at the immigration system. The delay in reuniting your family is inexcusable. It does sound that this was compounded by your spouse not living up to committments he made and leaving you to shoulder the burden of responsibility. All I can say is that I wish the system was different and I'm sorry.

[rbacon]

StatsCan was the source look it up yourself.

[PocketRocket]

StatsCan was the source look it up yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not the one claiming that over $20B was spent in this way.

Tradition and common courtesy dictate that the person making the claim cites a source.

[RB]

I'd have to agree with you. Our immigration system is a mess. Fortunately it is fixable by changing some of the immigration policies, however we currently lack political will or guts to make the required changes.

new immigrants are a benefit ONLY if they can pay their way, and will not drain the system but also be a benefit to those present.

[Renegade]

I'd have to agree with you. Our immigration system is a mess. Fortunately it is fixable by changing some of the immigration policies, however we currently lack political will or guts to make the required changes.

new immigrants are a benefit ONLY if they can pay their way, and will not drain the system but also be a benefit to those present.

I agree 100%, and the system should be changed to reflect that goal and be more accountable for measuring the net benefit.

BTW, cute cartoon.

[RB]

The couple may decide to overextend themselves by buying a house they can't afford, and it may lead to financial difficulties. We don't expect society to bail them out. Why should the choice to have children be different?

Look, the fundamental question I wanted answered and what I don't get is how come folks that are merely getting by financially are having more kids than those that are financially secure?

[Renegade]

Look, the fundamental question I wanted answered and what I don't get is how come folks that are merely getting by financially are having more kids than those that are financially secure?

Because, having children is not a financially rational decision. Biological urges for sex and to procreate as well as societal pressures are far more important influences in people having kids. It would seem that the people who are better off financially, are more motivated by other influences (such as a persuit of a career) than beiing fulfilled raising children. So in general, the people who opt not to have children are financiall better off because not only do they save on the cost of raising kids, but they also have more time and energy to persue endevours which will enhance their income.