Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[Argus]

On 7/13/2021 at 6:54 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I've already stated that I would cut immigration rates significantly down from the 400k the Liberals are looking at, specifically because of issues like housing, traffic etc.

Then clearly you're a racist.

 

On 7/13/2021 at 6:54 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

You seem to bring up issue after issue of how immigrants are bad for the country, and even deny the fact that immigration helps the economy. 

I've posted multiple cites from economists who say that. Are you an economist? Let me guess. You know it helps the economy because... because the government keeps telling you it helps the economy.

On 7/13/2021 at 6:54 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Increasing the population increases GDP and helps the TSX etc, a fact that is extremely basic economics.

This sounds very much like that cliche about a little knowledge being a dangerous things.

Have you ever paused to consider that the best, most prosperous countries in the world are mostly ones with small populations and the poor ones are mostly large? How do you reconcile this with your evident belief that adding more people is good? 

Also, if you'd read ANY of the cites from economists they would have told you that simply increasing the GDP is of no value to Canadians. 

On 7/13/2021 at 6:54 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

  Tim Hortons is going to sell more donuts and coffee if it has more customers and needs more locations in new subdivisions. 

Why would I care about that? How does that help me or anyone else in Canada other than the owners of Tim Hortons?

Let me put this as simply as possible. If you have two turkeys instead of one for dinner that's more food for you. But if your second turkey comes with more people than it doesn't help you at all. More turkey but more people equals no gain for you. It just makes the dining room more crowded.

On 7/13/2021 at 6:54 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

A shrinking population is not good for any large business in this country. 

Our population isn't shrinking. It's growing very fast, faster than most countries. 

On 7/13/2021 at 6:54 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

There's lots of problems with our immigration policy but holy crap man, the only logical conclusion is that you just don't like them.  Tell me I'm wrong.

See, the only logical conclusion I come to is you're too lazy to read any of the cites I've posted and yet are still quite certain you know it all. Because, like, how could you be wrong?

[Argus]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:31 AM, marcus said:

Immigration too has its positives and negatives. Canada's immigration system, for the most part, focuses on the highly educated and financially well off applicants.

Only about 15%-17% of immigrants are ever assessed for their skills and education. 

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

And the government has lowered the requirement even for the skilled applicants.

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

[Moonlight Graham]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

I've posted multiple cites from economists who say that. Are you an economist? Let me guess. You know it helps the economy because... because the government keeps telling you it helps the economy.

Post them and i'll look at them.

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

This sounds very much like that cliche about a little knowledge being a dangerous things.

Have you ever paused to consider that the best, most prosperous countries in the world are mostly ones with small populations and the poor ones are mostly large? How do you reconcile this with your evident belief that adding more people is good?

I see no correlation between country size and economic prosperity.  Some very small countries or city-states have fantastic GDP-per-capita because of the pure luck of sitting on a mountain of resources like oil, or they happen to control a large portion of international finance in their banks.

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

Also, if you'd read ANY of the cites from economists they would have told you that simply increasing the GDP is of no value to Canadians.

Of course it's of value.  The TSX and the value of the dollar are very important to the overall economy and all Canadians.

That doesn't mean mass immigration won't hurt Canadians if the immigration rate is higher than cities can absorb, leading to problems like overwhelmed infrastructure and skyrocketing housing prices.  But you also don't want decades of constantly shrinking housing prices and the like because supply outstrips demand due to a shrinking population.  Nor do we want labour shortages.

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

Our population isn't shrinking. It's growing very fast, faster than most countries. 

If we didn't have immigration it would be shrinking based on our sub-replacement birth rates.  Look at Japan with their low immigration, low birth rates, and rapidly shrinking population, and then look at the state of their economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan

"The Japanese economy faces considerable challenges posed by an aging and declining population, which peaked at 128 million in 2010 and has fallen to 125.9 million as of 2020.^[59] Projections suggest the population will continue to fall, and potentially drop below 100 million by the end of the 21st century.

...

The decline in working-aged cohorts may lead to a shrinking economy if productivity does not increase faster than the rate of Japan's decreasing workforce.^[65] The OECD estimates that similar labor shortages in Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden will depress the European Union's economic growth by 0.4 percentage points annually from 2000 to 2025, after which shortages will cost the EU 0.9 percentage points in growth. In Japan labor shortages will lower growth by 0.7 percentage points annually until 2025, after which Japan will also experience a 0.9 percentage points loss in growth."

[Moonlight Graham]

59 minutes ago, Argus said:

Then clearly you're a racist.

Do you have a problem with all immigration, or do you have a problem with certain kinds?  If so, which ones are you ok with?  And how many should come in per year?

I don't have a problem with immigrants, but they should be to the benefit of the country.  The number of new annual immigrants should help our economy and Canadians, not create harm via stressed infrastructure and skyrocketing housing price etc.

Refugees or any other class of immigrant shouldn't become permanent residents if they don't have the skills/education to support themselves in order to stay out of poverty.

Bring in a moderate # of highly educated/skilled immigrants, spread them across the country, this will help the country.

[myata]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

just so that I'm clear with your position, Currently you think MP's and PM are payed to much...and your unwilling to pay for the talent that is out there... OK then but lets take a look at the system currently in place, only the rich or famous or people that know people run for most offices in Canada, so a regular joe like me and you are not going to be in office...when we take a look at the talent we have now in all parties, well shit son there is not much out there is there. So the current system is a huge failure...And now we are limiting our selection by needing to find someone with all the traits of a good leader but is willing to work for peanuts...

Right, you nailed the main point, as far as I'm concerned at least, a vibrant democracy is not so much about the leaders than the citizens, who have to be engaged, active and willing to consider and participate in real change. I don't see any reason why an active and engaged citizen could not be a representative, they don't need to be CEOs. And a pseudo democratic system where it's not the case, where citizens are disengaged and not involved with the government, there's simply no magic solutions that could keep it running well. It will always come down to ever higher compensations, $17 juice allowances, reports and commissions and why not, it's the nature of life we take what can be taken and with time we get used to it, assume it as normal and look for more.

And this is what we have and as far as I understand have been since the times of confederation. Otherwise someone would have asked questions about residential schools for example, and someone would have to answer and defend them, openly and in public.

[myata]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Post them and i'll look at them.

I see no correlation between country size and economic prosperity.  Some very small countries or city-states have fantastic GDP-per-capita because of the pure luck of sitting on a mountain of resources like oil, or they happen to control a large portion of international finance in their banks.

Of course it's of value.  The TSX and the value of the dollar are very important to the overall economy and all Canadians.

That doesn't mean mass immigration won't hurt Canadians if the immigration rate is higher than cities can absorb, leading to problems like overwhelmed infrastructure and skyrocketing housing prices.  But you also don't want decades of constantly shrinking housing prices and the like because supply outstrips demand due to a shrinking population.  Nor do we want labour shortages.

If we didn't have immigration it would be shrinking based on our sub-replacement birth rates.  Look at Japan with their low immigration, low birth rates, and rapidly shrinking population, and then look at the state of their economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan

"The Japanese economy faces considerable challenges posed by an aging and declining population, which peaked at 128 million in 2010 and has fallen to 125.9 million as of 2020.^[59] Projections suggest the population will continue to fall, and potentially drop below 100 million by the end of the 21st century.

The problem of aging and declining population is a very real one. It's a new reality and environment for developed countries and as with any change there are two main approaches: to hold on to the past and try to reproduce it at any cost, and this is what is done with massive immigration policy; or try to find new approaches, for example: healthier, more active, more engage population involved in satisfying and flexible work longer, free continuous lifetime education etc.

The problem here is not that one was chosen, but how and by who: by default, as the only possible option without public discussion of possible options and directions. And this is a major decision, a direction for the country for decades. What if its the wrong one? Commission, apology and compensation?

Edited July 16, 2021 by myata

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Do you have a problem with all immigration, or do you have a problem with certain kinds?  If so, which ones are you ok with?  And how many should come in per year?

I believe we're bringing in too many immigrants to absorb properly, nor am I alone in that.

Indeed, the internal report, obtained under an access to information request, shows that immigration analysts are worried that the “absorptive capacity” of Canada is going down.

“Declining outcomes of recent immigrants have shown that integration is not automatic,” says the report, which surveys emerging problems with immigration flows and the pressure it’s putting on Canadian sectors.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

I believe too many of the immigrants we bring in are unskilled and do not have the language, education or job skills to be contributing taxpayers. Ie, those who pay more to the government than the government spends on services for them.

The only group which does reasonably well are skilled immigrants, but even they are accompanied by many family members who do not. 

Principal applicants selected under the economic immigration program integrate well into the labour market. But their immediate families do not. Overall, this means that, across all categories, most new immigrants struggle in the labour market after their arrival. One way to encourage better outcomes is to substantially increase the target for economic immigration.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-must-put-the-emphasis-on-economic-immigration/?utm_medium=Referrer%3A+Social+Network+%2F+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links&fbclid=IwAR0ZaHP4TRZifPsOEYkAD5USf1GTaNclAk-VFK61s6HZIiM0-LMTYrC4O_Y

I think immigration should be at least cut in half, and possibly by two thirds. I'd have to see what the numbers would look like. And it should be strictly based on job skills except in humanitarian cases. Obviously skilled applicants have to bring in their spouses, but it might be helpful if we gave precedence/priority to principle applicants who also had a skilled/educated spouse as opposed to those who do not.

We should also be reinstituting applicant interviews to determine their language ability (tests can be forged/faked) and to determine how adaptable the potential immigrant is and how smoothly they can integrate into our society.

And yes, before you ask, immigrants who are very religious and whose religion contains values they cling to which are antithetical to our own would be a low priority for approval.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Post them and i'll look at them.

 

 

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

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-immigration-may-lift-economy-but-not-peoples-wages-plus-other-economists-lessons

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

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/13/immigrants-wont-pay-for-our-pensions-well-pay-for-theirs/

[Army Guy]

On 7/16/2021 at 5:46 AM, myata said:

Right, you nailed the main point, as far as I'm concerned at least, a vibrant democracy is not so much about the leaders than the citizens, who have to be engaged, active and willing to consider and participate in real change. I don't see any reason why an active and engaged citizen could not be a representative, they don't need to be CEOs. And a pseudo democratic system where it's not the case, where citizens are disengaged and not involved with the government, there's simply no magic solutions that could keep it running well. It will always come down to ever higher compensations, $17 juice allowances, reports and commissions and why not, it's the nature of life we take what can be taken and with time we get used to it, assume it as normal and look for more.

And this is what we have and as far as I understand have been since the times of confederation. Otherwise someone would have asked questions about residential schools for example, and someone would have to answer and defend them, openly and in public.

It's all about the leader, and the team behind them,  and the message they can craft, look at Justins campaign against the conservatives for example, when liberal voters are asked why are you voting for Justin damaged liberals, most while reply it is better than the alternatives... Justin PR guys have painted the conservatives as poison, they are going to cut all the benefits the liberals have already gave out, they are going to implement massive cuts or out right cut other social programs , bring back abortion, give etc ... Now if someone like Justin can do it, imagine what could be done with someone that understands how to run the country, and how to make the right chioce or decision..

Why do i bring this up the Average Canadian does not know enough politics or running a country, current events or does not give a crap about government and how it is run. And even the ones that are interested, like those on this forum , how many different opinions do we have here, i can't imagine giving each citizen a say.  

This Nation is so divided into thousands of little camps it is almost imposable to get any one on the same page. 

[RedDog]

POTtowa continues it's mission toward Cancel Culture.

I didn't abandon Canada. Canada abandoned me.

[Shady]

Argus is very opposed to these changes in policy.  Unless he’s posting in the American politics section of the forum.  Then he supports politicians that support these policies! ?

You see, his positions on issues change depending on what section of the forum he’s in.  This goes for other policies as well, such as carbon taxes, liberal judges etc.

[RedDog]

What is POTawa’s plans for the Somalis along 107 ave in Edmonton? They ran the Vietnamese out of the Ho Che Min Trail and they sit and drink coffee all afternoon? How does this benefit CanaDUH?

Where is the “economy” they brag about in OntariOWE and PAYbec?

 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Shady said:

Argus is very opposed to these changes in policy.  Unless he’s posting in the American politics section of the forum.  Then he supports politicians that support these policies! ?

You see, his positions on issues change depending on what section of the forum he’s in.  This goes for other policies as well, such as carbon taxes, liberal judges etc.

You are an obsessed Trumptard with a bizarre fetish love for Trump and whatever he utters. You've also adopted his level of dishonesty. I almost never even post in the US forum since I'm mostly interested in Canada. You, on the other hand, make it your life's work to expound on the wonder and perfection of Donald Trump and all his beliefs.

I oppose the same policies in Canada and the US. I support the same policies in Canada and the US. It's too bad you can't say the same as you want left wing protesters locked up but have a fanboy love for the right wing ones who stormed the Capital and hurt so many police.

 

[myata]

Fully automated farms or mass importing of cheap unqualified labor from third world? Where will Canada be by the end of this century? And how?

Cost of university degree went from $1000 (1980s) to $6,500 (2020). MP salary increased over tenfold in this period.

Average wage in the country $54,300. Minus 1% that is paying itself, around $50,000. Now do a simple math: if in your profession salary grew at the rate of MP, it would have been around $5,000 in 1980 ($2.40 hourly). And at the rate of tuition, $7,700 ($3.70). Wait no, that was the average wage in the 1950s! By the rate of prosperity increase of MP or university education, our average salaries are still in the 50-60s. Excuse me, whose prosperity is steadily rising here? Of how many?

Now, it's about twice that long to 2090s. What an MP salary will be by end of the century? Compared to that of an average citizen, can we do the math? Or even care to?

Edited July 25, 2021 by myata