Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

1. I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting that nothing has improved in Canada.
2. My question was in what way has heavy immigration raising our population to 38 million improved the lives of Canadians? How is Canada a better, richer, stronger country now than it was in 1971 (due to population increase)? Cities are more crowded and dirty with enormous transportation problems and much longer commutes.
3. Wages have not remotely kept pace with the cost of living. Government services which used to be free  now carry hefty surcharges.

4. Our health care system has markedly deteriorated. 

5. How have those extra 17 million people made Canada better for me?   And how will bringing in millions more make my life better in the future?

6. I do not care who is on the 'no growth' team. Not everything supported by the Left is bad, nor is everything supported by the Right good.

1. Ok my bad.
2. It's kind of a hard question because you are comparing it against a theoretical 22 million strong Canada in 2021.  But ok.
3. GDP has grown, though.  Wage distribution is about how wealth is distributed.  The country overall is wealthier.
4. How so ?  There are a lot of services you can get today that you could not before.  And, again, if it has deteriorated why is that about population growth and not government bureaucracy or other factors ?
5. Back to my original (incorrect) point, though, you have enjoyed at least some advantages from immigration.  Even if overall it's been a net negative you have enjoyed some advantages somewhere.  
6. Well, that's fair.

And to be clear - I am actually intrigued by this argument.  You have made this point in the past and I have gone from 'against' to 'maybe' on this.
 

[Shady]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, firstly that's an impossibly negative assessment.  Lots of things are better in Canada today.  I'll put on my conservative hat to name a few you might relate to:

-Government-owned companies are on the wane
-Deficits are much more of a concern (emergencies like Covid notwithstanding) than they were (Preston Manning, Paul Martin)
-Manufacturing tax is gone (thanks to Brian Mulroney)
-Canadian exports are something like 30X what they were
-Quebec Nationalism has largely been quelled (Stephen Harper acknowledgement of Quebec's status)
-Personal identity is no longer constraints, ie. equal rights for women and other groups

Secondly, you have a baked-in assumption that any problems we have experienced are due to our population increasing, which isn't the case.  Europe and Japan were always going to catch up to us from 1970 (25 after their infrastructure was bombed to the ground) and for us to pine for the "good old days", assuming that that factor isn't significant is fallacious.

As I have pointed out to you in the past, the 'No Growth' team is largely eco-left, and Green.  David Suzuki is a leading proponent of no growth.  Go to them, they are calling.

No, deficits were much more of a concern in the. 90s.  That’s why the liberal government slashed spending across the board.  In some cases by 15-20%.
The manufacturing tax has just been replaced with the carbon tax.  

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And to be clear - I am actually intrigued by this argument.  You have made this point in the past and I have gone from 'against' to 'maybe' on this.

I don't think the point of no immigration can be made in any realistic way today. The world has gone global in these decades and that cannot be reverted on a whim. The question therefore is what immigration, how immigration, when and how much immigration, as opposed to steady march to the bright future, let's just get ever more because travel from Wuhan is not a problem, fanfares. This kind of cheerful stu(diousi)ty attitude, let's just do it and see what happens will cost the country at some point and maybe dearly.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

1. I don't think the point of no immigration can be made in any realistic way today. The world has gone global in these decades and that cannot be reverted on a whim.

 

1. Japan has very low immigration.

[cougar]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

1.  That's not really true. Bringing in unskilled, uneducated people increases welfare rolls and also keeps wages down in low skilled jobs. If those wages rise, as they ought to, more Canadians would be attracted to them. We dont need to import foreigners to so them. 

2. I can't see one way in which this country is better off today with 38 million people than it was in 1971 at 22 million. And people want it to grow to 100 million! Why?!

On the first one, I do not know what you consider unskilled.  You need only to speak English and have basic memory to serve coffee and donuts at Tim Hortons. Do you need a guy with a PhD for these positions?  And for the matter of fact we currently have and create mostly sales associate and equipment operator positions.  Why? Because we a resource reserve for the World to just buy and extract and produce.  We do not produce.  We sell.

The second one I completely understand and support.  People are actually getting poorer and poorer, unable to buy shelter and feed and clothe themselves.  But the scammers in Canadian politics and the private sector backing them up must be making billions by the scams they run.

Hope they enjoy the current weather.  Hope they are unable to sleep, go anywhere, buy anything.  It is coming for them.

[cougar]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. GDP has grown, though.  Wage distribution is about how wealth is distributed.  The country overall is wealthier.

If you can explain this one to me, I will award you a medal!

the country is wealthier, people are poorer, we should clap hands and be happy???? !!!!!!

The country is POORER

Salmon runs are 10% or less of what they were.  Wildlife is way less.  forests are way less.  Glaciers are nearly gone and it all comes crashing down.

One thing has increased - the amounts of plastics, industrial sewage, landfills and piss and shit going into the ocean.

And that's about it!

[blackbird]

With all the Marxist-leaning government we have in Canada, often the answer they have is to tax us.  That is true of Trudeau and the Liberals who think they can solve the world's problems through taxation.  One of the most egregious taxes is the carbon taxes.  What is most disappointing about this is there are many scientists who disagree with the claims of man-made global warming and the taxes on Canadians will make no difference to climate change. 

Now a local municipal or regional district government is talking about charging people to go to the local beaches on the west coast, possibly an outrageous $10 per car for every four hours.  They also want authorities to stop people from parking their RVs on logging roads while they refuse to build enough forest service campsites for campers.

Edited June 29, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, cougar said:

 

1. The country is POORER

2. Salmon runs are 10% or less of what they were.  Wildlife is way less.  forests are way less.  Glaciers are nearly gone and it all comes crashing down.

1. Cite?

2. We were talking about economics, and not factoring in ecology.

[myata]

I remember the time when a swimming session at municipal pool was under $3. Now, close to $6.

A bus ticket was around $2; at 3.75 now ($ 7.50 return) it's been a long time since I used public transit here, unless absolutely had to.

Municipal taxes were under $2K now edging on 4.

License sticker renewal, $80 to over 120.

Pandemic burger in a shack, $16 add tax 20 with delivery and tip, 30. Used to be a restaurant meal. What's a meal in a restaurant these days, no clue.

Higher education is expensive and constantly creeping up. Many countries in Europe have free university education.

Healthcare system in a permanent crisis commissions or no.

Housing prices through the roof. Rental prices through the ceiling. No worries, let's just try more of the same and see what happens.

I know someone who just started in a similar job that I had some years back. Guess what? Their salary didn't double (like that of the MPs), it's about the same may be modest 10% increase. What is it called when prices have doubled but the income remained same? Is it called "rising prosperity of the population"? (not counting public CEOs, heads of commissions and task forces, MPs etc)

Edge, edge, edge, nudge, nudge 2%, 3%, 5% always up, up, up and there's no mechanism, no mirror and/or alarm to tell look $10 return trip is too much; property taxes are too expensive; salary of MP/GG has no relation to the reality of an average citizen in the country; there's only so much that a cost of a trivial service like license sticker can be before it's ridiculous and have no relation to the reality. No, none and "representatives" don't count because they are also partisan recruits required to toe party line in exchange for (... synonym here) entitlement and the conflict of interest, to the public or to the corporate entitlement was obvious from the beginning.

And now there are two possibilities: it's just me, negative where life is great, rosy and marching steadily into ever brighter future; or this country is heading somewhere and at accelerating pace. Where to, anyone still cares? What if there's hard stop?

Edited June 29, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

1. I remember the time when  ...

2. And now there are two possibilities: it's just me, negative where life is great, rosy and marching steadily into ever brighter future; or this country is heading somewhere and at accelerating pace. Where to, anyone still cares? What if there's hard stop?

1. Your examples are, by definition, 'anecdotal'.  You can just get aggregate stats from Stats Canada, CPI etc. and they will be more convincing.

2. What you have posted here is called "a lament".

[myata]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. What you have posted here is called "a lament".

That attitude just shown is called "locked in the ivory tower". Excuse me? Someone just done studying at twice the cost, pays double for pretty much everything, rent probably more than double while getting the same wage (as not an MP yet) but not to worry, because all of it "anecdotal" but life generally is much better. Just because we said so. Ahaha. Let's do a talking panel discussion.

Make no mistake though: ivory tower with 185 K base salaries, clean up the swamp, alternative facts and worse, at times much worse are all parts of the same narrative. No can't take that chapter out.

Edited June 29, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, myata said:

1. That attitude just shown is called "locked in the ivory tower".

2. ... because all of it "anecdotal"

3. but life generally is much better. Just because we said so. Ahaha. Let's do a talking panel discussion.

1. I would counter to say that you may indeed be locked in a shitty basement ?  I am calling for objective measures, rather than your subjective and depressingly negative take on every single thing.  If I am in said tower, the objective measure will prove me wrong, see ?

2. Yes, that is correct.

3. Did you just finish your education ?  Why do you make these logical leaps ?  Your critical thinking seems off to me.  I didn't say life is better, let alone much better.  I said you need to build an empirical thesis based on facts, ie. objective measures, not your stories.
 

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Did you just finish your education ?  Why do you make these logical leaps ?  Your critical thinking seems off to me.  I didn't say life is better, let alone much better.  I said you need to build an empirical thesis based on facts, ie. objective measures, not your stories.
 

There's a simpler explanation: selective vision, filtered glasses. These are facts and I don't care what label you stick to them. Alternative facts, swamp or rosy liberal glasses which one I couldn't care less because both are obviously wrong, and both terribly boring cause played out so many, many times before.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, myata said:

1. There's a simpler explanation: selective vision, filtered glasses.
2. These are facts and I don't care what label you stick to them.
3. Alternative facts, swamp or rosy liberal glasses which one I couldn't care less because both are obviously wrong, and both terribly boring cause played out so many, many times before.

1. That's why objective facts are needed - they filter out the filter.
2. They are your perspective on things important to you, therefore subjective.
3. This really sounds like you are putting your head in the sand.  If you don't want to use objective measures, what are you saying about yourself ?  Seriously.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's the equivalent:

-Things are great because me and everyone I know are doing great
-Everyone kept their jobs during the pandemic
-It's all great from what I can see

If you don't accept that, why should I accept your perspective ?

I can't believe I have to explain this to someone who just completed even a high school education, sorry.  I get that things are bad for you, though, and for anyone younger than Gen-X for sure but let's be precise when we're chatting hm ?

[myata]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's why objective facts are needed - they filter out the filter.
2. They are your perspective on things important to you, therefore subjective.
3. This really sounds like you are putting your head in the sand.  If you don't want to use objective measures, what are you saying about yourself ?  Seriously.

What is not objective? $120 license sticker is not objective in Ontario? $7.50 return bus ticket? $185 K MP salary not objective and only my perspective? Rental and housing crises across the country are subjective? The starting salary of my friend was subjective in her offer letter? What is it supposed to mean?

Sorry you sound like Trump, and sorry there's no point in discussing particular visions as everybody is free to set their filters on the reality. So she, the reality will be the final judge.

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

1.  $120 license sticker is not objective in Ontario? $7.50 return bus ticket?

2. $185 K MP salary not objective and only my perspective? Rental and housing crises across the country are subjective? The starting salary of my friend was subjective in her offer letter? What is it supposed to mean?

3. Sorry you sound like Trump,
 

4. ...and sorry there's no point in discussing particular visions as everybody is free to set their filters on the reality.

5. So she, the reality will be the final judge.

1. Of course, but it's a slide of what the average person pays.  Televisions, computers and cocaine have gone down in price too... is that relevant ? 

2. That's a moral question.  I think they are overpaid also, but I wouldn't think that if they were more productive>

3. That's an ad hominem.  Would you imagine Trump using that word ?

4. In other words - what I am saying is a beautiful fountain of my own bullshit.  Gaze upon it and move on, unconvinced.  

5. Uh huh... well, ok.  Back to work for me...

[myata]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course, but it's a slide of what the average person pays.  Televisions, computers and cocaine have gone down in price too... is that relevant ?

What is "a slide": double rent with the same pretty much salary (not an MP)  a slide? Remember bread and brioches? I think it may be somewhere near that point conceptually if not literally though who knows. The detachment is near complete, to infinity and beyond. How can one represent if they have no clue about the reality in the tower with $17 juice, all expenses paid from some bottomless reservoir somewhere far, far away?

Edited June 29, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, myata said:

1. What is "a slide": double rent with the same pretty much salary (not an MP)  a slide? 
2. $17 juice 

1. Sorry - should have been 'slice'
2. I suggest using CPI stats

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, myata said:

I remember the time when a...

It's inflation. The currency is de-valued every time our government just miraculously creates more currency.

Think of it this way - if the government just gives Canadians a trillion dollars next year, that doesn't mean that everyone can rush out and buy a Lamborghini because the number of Lamborghinis doesn't magically increase at the same time. The price of a Lambo would just up from $249,000 to $360,000 or whatever (just a wild guess - I'm not in the market for one).

This is how Biden is going to achieve his $15/hr goal. The Biden administration is giving out so much money that it is devaluing their dollar. Soon people will be getting $15/hr, but those $15 will only have the same buying power that $12 (approximation) has today. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I suggest using CPI stats

For who? For a regular Joe or for GG with public CEO with MP? Those would be quite different consumers, and CPIs.

I have no interest whatsoever how someone spends what they made in an honest market, millions or billions, taxes paid. But if a "public" boss wants to be paid on par with peer CEO that is a clear and obvious problem. And one that has no solutions within bureaucratic system itself.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

1. For a regular Joe  

2. I have no interest whatsoever how someone spends what they made in an honest market 

1. Yes
2. You seem to

[cougar]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Cite?

2. We were talking about economics, and not factoring in ecology.

"Economics"  ?   "Wealthier"?    

Just as I thought you have zero clue what you are talking about.

 

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, cougar said:

"Economics"  ?   "Wealthier"?    

Just as I thought you have zero clue what you are talking about.

Do you want to explain or ?

[cougar]

8 hours ago, myata said:

What is it called when prices have doubled but the income remained same? Is it called "rising prosperity of the population"?

You can't  reason with people who's abilities to reason and understand are limited or who have a special agenda to deflect, deny, minimize or put the discussion on a tangent when they've lost all credibility.