Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[Moonlight Graham]

On 6/30/2021 at 12:52 AM, dialamah said:

Overall standard of living has increased in Western countries.  We have the majority of world's wealth, which includes things like energy, abundant and fresh food and luxuries.  This doesn't include natural resources, as MH has already acknowledged.  

We may have started, or be about to start, on a downhill from here, I dunno.  But complaining about how "poor" Canada is because bus fare has increased and property taxes have gone up seems a pretty "first world" problem to me.

50 years ago you could raise a family on a single income.  Now you essentially need 2 incomes to afford a house.  Where did all that money go from the 2nd income?  It just went into housing inflation, maybe a 2nd car and a carribean vacation once a year, but the vast majority of it went into housing bids, which means it has been essentially flushed down the toilet via inflation. We're have fewer kids now than at any point in human history, obviously our extra incomes haven't gone into children.

The standard of living has slightly increased, incomes adjusted for inflation for the 99% haven't that much.  Everyone and every government is in ridiculous amounts of debt.  Technology has evolved, that's the saving grace for our standard of living.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Income in Canada 2009 published by Statistics Canada." showed a 17% real gain in income over 40+ plus years.  So your cherry-picked evidence doesn't measure up.
 

How much gain in housing costs and overall cost of living?  Income gains mean nothing without knowing purchasing power.

[Moonlight Graham]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

By objective measurement - aka GDP - Canada is wealthier than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.  Here's a graph showing that our GDP has steadily increased since the 1960s.  There's a slight dip between 2015 and 2016, but even those years are significantly higher than previous decades and from 2017 on trend to exceed previous highs.

Where are the fruits of this GDP growth going?  To wealthy stockholders of oil companies and banks, or the average Canadian?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How much gain in housing costs and overall cost of living?  Income gains mean nothing without knowing purchasing power.

At least one of the articles I'm reading factors this in. The thing to keep in mind though is that the higher costs of housing have really only hit us in the last few years, so they may not be reflected instead to go to 2015 or so.

[myata]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Where are the fruits of this GDP growth going?  To wealthy stockholders of oil companies and banks, or the average Canadian?

Thatcher's economists figured out a great strategy for GDP growth: let's invite world's millionaires shady ones, Russian sure, here. They'll be buying properties prices would rise hurray! they'll buy a lot of luxury stuff, not sure what it would do to the real economy but who cares, hurray! Show it to Joe comes election time, see GDP growth you just got wealthier Joe vote for us we care!

Then came Canadian bureaucracy: this is good but way too complicated. Too messy to get in millionaires just go with the third world. And we're sitting on this wishing well called public budget anyways, so just pay it to ourselves and the same result, bingo! 17% real growth numbers don't lie now go figure it Joe, with double housing prices.

It's stup(enduos)ly naive to give bureaucracy a formal paper objective and hope that it'll do something useful with it. Of course it'll find a way to show it on paper while rewarding itself to the max and then (185 K base plus, not enough when is the next raise). Stup(endious)ity is rarely a virtue, in the real world. Someone will always take good care of it.

Edited July 1, 2021 by myata

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

At least one of the articles I'm reading factors this in. The thing to keep in mind though is that the higher costs of housing have really only hit us in the last few years, so they may not be reflected instead to go to 2015 or so.

And another stretching of truth. OK housing market cannot be predicted (sure about it though, with massive immigration?) but what about property taxes and municipal services? Chink, chink, ding ding, 2, 3, 5% year on year, no break, no matter what. Result: near doubled, in two decades. MP's salary kept up, GG all expenses paid, millionaire doing fine who else? Hello? Anybody else out there, with starting salary doubled in two decades?

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, myata said:

1. And another stretching of truth. OK housing market cannot be predicted (sure about it though, with massive immigration?) but what about property taxes and municipal services? Chink, chink, ding ding, 2, 3, 5% year on year, no break, no matter what.

2. . MP's salary kept up, GG all expenses paid, millionaire doing fine who else? Hello? Anybody else out there, with starting salary doubled in two decades?

1. Your problem seems to be with statistics Canada and the CPI.  You should probably take it up with them, I don't feel up to defending the number. One of my university professors used to work for them and he was pretty smart.  That said, whatever their teams of statisticians came up with is still better than you citing individual guesses at things that have become more expensive.

2. I already explained this I think. According to the stats, MPS kept up as did the average canadian. The 1% though doubled their incomes. I'm confused now, are you complaining about them now or not?

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

... as did the average canadian.

What do we call facts that are not true, or too stretchy to mean anything? "Alternative facts", yes?

What "average Canadian" had their starting salary doubled in two decades? Where can we see that Canadian?

This by the way, always happens when trying to defend non-defendable. Something that patently isn't true and everybody knows it, except those who want to pretend to not see anything. Life is beautiful with $17 juice (from taxpayer's pocket).

[blackbird]

The more immigrants the Liberals can bring in from the third world, the more guaranteed Liberal votes for the future.  Naturally they will vote Liberal or NDP because these two parties are the most globalist, multilateralist parties which support mass immigration from the third world.  These parties are ideologically the most post-national, open border parties who support the U.N. and other international organizations.  They are the parties which are most opposed to nationalism and most opposed to our country having a strong military and most opposed to a strong alliance with our traditional allies.  These are the parties that are working in the background for multilateralism and one world government via the U.N.  The evidence for that is to see who are the Canadian politicians who have been appointed to world bodies and other international organizations.  You will find they are usually well-known past NDP or Liberal leaders or politicians.  These parties are in effect working for a one world government. 

The recent two bills introduced to Parliament, C10 and C36, are designed to limit freedom of speech of Canadians in order to allow the government to push it's own narrative and agenda for a totalitarian system within our own country and work to further a one world government.  If these bills happen to die during this Parliament, you can be sure they will be renewed with the next Liberal government, which is the most likely scenario.  The C10 and C36 laws plan to direct the CRTC or other bureaucracies to enforce speech control through social media companies with a fine up to $70,000 and/or house arrest for violators.   Whatever they decree as "hate speech" will be punishable.  This of course could be any speech they deem as inappropriate.  Of course the one world government will not be a democratic institution, but rather it will be a totalitarian system. 

Bill C10 + Bill C36: Canadian censorship on steroids | Our Greater Destiny

Wake up now or wake up in a Gulag!

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Okay but I'm still waiting for how adding millions of people has made it better.
   
   There's no evidence that is associated with immigration or an increased population, though.  

2. What is this bad stat?

3. You're still ignoring the question. You call it isolationist not to want mass immigration?

4. I'm not utterly opposed to immigration. If the immigrants are professionals who can speak the language well, adapt and assimilate well, and make a good enough living to pay more to the taxman than they get in return.  

5. Is it really? In what way? In my father's day a man with a decent, not great job could afford to buy his own house and support a non-working wife and three children. My uncle was an armored car guard and did just that. That's impossible now. If you compare the average wage from 1971 to what it cost to buy a car, a house, or almost anything else including getting a college education, it's much, much harder now.

6. Average income was $18k in 1970 and the average cost of a house was $65k. Average cost of a car $3543. Cost of a year's tuition at university was about $534. Average income today is $54,630 today. Average cost of a house is $716k. Average cost of a car is $40,941. University tuition for one year $6463

 

 

1. We actually went around on this topic years ago.  You enlightened me to the fact that there isn't a strong consensus that immigration increases wealth to individuals in a country, but there is somewhat of a consensus that it does.  "Evidence" is what is the basis for economics papers.   Other countries have different experiences but it's difficult/impossible to isolate immigration in terms of that variable's impact.

2. I quoted a stat based on immigration salaries, then deleted it when I figured out that it was from a bad source.

3. I would call it isolationist, yes.  Are you still interested in joining trade agreements ?  I'm asking honestly - I didn't see your response.

4. Ok - you could likely have the same immigration levels almost by taking software workers and professionals from overseas.  Is that ok with you ?

5. 6.  The problem I have with these comparisons is they rely on narratives, not numbers.  Yes, people will remember a lot of great things about 1971 for the so-called 'average guy' but what do the numbers say ?  It seems like said average guy is doing better now.  Of course housing is very expensive these days, but hey if we're going to be anecdotal ... all the average guys I know are sitting in a house that's worth more than they paid for it.  Average guys under 30 maybe not so much. 

We can talk about housing and its relationship with immigration but our immigration was high for years and house prices didn't start spiking until recently so it's not just an immigration thing.  If you are going to allow speculation with foreign investment in real estate, and let houses sit empty as they are waiting to be flipped then this will happen.  I feel like the government wants this situation.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, myata said:

1. What do we call facts that are not true, or too stretchy to mean anything? "Alternative facts", yes?

2. What "average Canadian" had their starting salary doubled in two decades? Where can we see that Canadian?

3. This by the way, always happens when trying to defend non-defendable. Something that patently isn't true and everybody knows it, except those who want to pretend to not see anything. Life is beautiful with $17 juice (from taxpayer's pocket).

1. Well I provided evidence.  Your response seems to be to call it incorrect without a cite.
2. Why are we talking about two decades all of a sudden ?  Let me google that for you: average wage went up 77.7% from 2000 to 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/439904/average-hourly-wage-by-occupation-canada/
3. Well I don't know it.  I don't know a lot of things until I look them up.  Unlike you, I think.

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Well I don't know it.

Let's wrap it up: you were asked a very simple question, and you don't know and throw unrelated and useless numbers instead to make it look as though it means anything.

Five decades (1972 - 2021): MP salary from $18,000 to $185,000

Two decades (2000 - 2021): MP salary from $68,000 to $185,000

Which "average Canadian" has seen salary going tenfold (50 years), or 2.5 times in the same position in two decades? Will it ever get too boring to twist and stretch the reality into implausible agenda?

Edited July 1, 2021 by myata

[myata]

Interesting by the way, not so? that MP salary shot up almost twofold around the time of the sponsorship scandal. A coincidence? And no inquiries followed for a few years. Which brings a very valid and very current question: employees, or representatives? With loyalty, to who? And if we couldn't care to see it and think about it, it won't change the outcome one bit.

Edited July 1, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

55 minutes ago, myata said:

1. you were asked a very simple question,
2. and you don't know and throw unrelated and useless numbers instead to make it look as though it means anything.

3. Five decades (1972 - 2021): MP salary from $18,000 to $185,000 Two decades (2000 - 2021): MP salary from $68,000 to $185,000

4. Which "average Canadian" has seen salary going tenfold (50 years), or 2.5 times in the same position in two decades? Will it ever get too boring to twist and stretch the reality into implausible agenda?

1. " What "average Canadian" had their starting salary doubled in two decades? Where can we see that Canadian?"
2. I provided the statistics to answer your question.
3. Ok - well ... now you are bringing MP salaries into this, maybe because I was answering all of your questions about this.  
MP Salaries actually doubled from 2000-2001 so why not start from the salary in 2001 which was $131,400 - after the restructuring ?  If you do that, then it comes down to a 1.8% increase every year.  Not that much.  
4.  Facts, my friend.  Facts.  

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, myata said:

Interesting by the way, not so? that MP salary shot up almost twofold around the time of the sponsorship scandal. A coincidence? And no inquiries followed for a few years. Which brings a very valid and very current question: employees, or representatives? With loyalty, to who? And if we couldn't care to see it and think about it, it won't change the outcome one bit.

You can look up what happened.  They folded non-taxable expenses into taxable salary.

I am not defending MP salaries, but asking only that you use facts and try to post less hysterically.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I would call it isolationist, yes. 

Immigration has costs, including more pollution, more urban sprawl, more social disruption and cultural upheaval. It seems to me that lacking real evidence of the benefits demanding high immigration is foolish and opposing it is simply sensible. Why should our immigration be so much higher than other western countries?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you still interested in joining trade agreements ?  I'm asking honestly - I didn't see your response.

Sure. But I would want those agreements measured not against what wealth it brings to corporations but what value it produces for ordinary citizens. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Ok - you could likely have the same immigration levels almost by taking software workers and professionals from overseas.  Is that ok with you ?

University degrees are not the primary factor in determining immigrant economic success. Language ability is. I would do as Australia has done and increase language requirements, just to start. I would also reduce numbers to 100k per year, so that we get the cream of the crop and see where we go from there. I would also end the ability to sponsor elderly immigrants unless sponsors took out medical insurance and everyone realized that if the sponsors stop paying their relative's way the relative would be deported. I would reduce family class sponsorship, and subject the principle applicants to skill/education/language requirements.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. 6.  The problem I have with these comparisons is they rely on narratives, not numbers. 

I provided numbers for several important purchases, including education.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We can talk about housing and its relationship with immigration but our immigration was high for years and house prices didn't start spiking until recently so it's not just an immigration thing. 

Immigration certainly has an impact. But the point I was making is that ordinary Canadians do not seem to be better off. In 1971 the cost of a car was 20% of the average salary and now it's 75%. Tuition was 3% of an average salary and now it's nearly 12%. How are Canadians lives better now than they were back then if you can't afford a car, an education or a house? They're not, so how has immigration benefited us again?

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Immigration has costs, including... 

2. Sure. But I would want those agreements measured not against what wealth it brings to corporations but what value it produces for ordinary citizens. 

3. University degrees are not the primary factor in determining immigrant economic success. Language ability is. 

4. Immigration certainly has an impact. But the point I was making is that ordinary Canadians do not seem to be better off. 

 

1. I covered that in the last post.  As I said, we looked into this before.  Orthodoxy says it's slightly worth it, which was a revelation to me.  For what it's worth, I'm ok with a deep re-examination of all economic and growth policies, but in the end that process would look a lot like collectivism, ie. leftism to you.   

2. Those who set these agreements up initially, and got the ball rolling (ie. Reagan/Mulroney/Thatcher etc.) would have the big numbers work out, and chips fall where they may, ie. trickle down.  But ok.

3. Did not know.

4. From your point #2, it seems that you acknowlege that ordinary Canadians are not foremost in mind when trade agreements are set up.  So, immigration would only be part of the picture if it's a factor, right ?

At a high level, you are looking for intervention and mitigation of market forces.

[blackbird]

Liberals and NDP especially like the idea of third world immigration because most of these people do not support our European founding people and Judeo-Christian civilization.  This means the third world immigrants are more likely to support the progressive's agenda of destroying western civilization and building a Marxist-progressive kind of society.  There are some people who are exceptions of course and do support our western society.  But liberal progressivism is built on secular humanist ideology which rejects the traditional family structure and rejects faith in God and country and embraces the sexual orientation-sex change dogma that everyone should do their own thing and love whoever or whatever sex they wish.  When will this progressive agenda move to peadophilia and bestiality?   

Edited July 1, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

One reason real estate prices are out of sight in Vancouver, Victoria, and other major cities is because of money laundering of foreign money from rich foreigners or crime sources.  Canada has become a Narco state and vast amounts of money have been pouring in and is being invested in real estate, driving the prices up.  Even rich people in Communist China don't trust the Communist government and believe if they leave their money in China it could be seized by the government at any time.  So the safest way to store their money is to put it in real estate in places like Vancouver.  

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They folded non-taxable expenses into taxable salary....

only that you use facts and try to post less hysterically.  

OMG look, there's a credible explanation. Honestly! And let me guess.... shhh.. there's no more additional "expenses" and "allowances"? (see below on "hysterical")

The fact is that job with starting salary of $185K plus allowances does not exist in this Universe. You can admit it or keep pretending that all is nice and rosy with "average Canadian", that can always be done, only for a while though. And no it's not hysterical (your choice of word) just stinky and disgusting. Not that I would want to be within a mile of it, and in my personal understanding of things, few normal people would.

Edited July 1, 2021 by myata

[myata]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

So the safest way to store their money is to put it in real estate in places like Vancouver.  

But of course GDP just grown hurray, don't we deserve another raise

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

1. OMG look, there's a credible explanation. Honestly! And let me guess.... shhh.. there's no more additional "expenses" and "allowances"? (see below on "hysterical")

2. The fact is that job with starting salary of $185K plus allowances does not exist in this Universe.

3. You can admit it or ...

4. keep pretending that all is nice and rosy with "average Canadian",

5. that can always be done, only for a while though.

6. And no it's not hysterical (your choice of word) just stinky and disgusting. Not that I would want to be within a mile of it, and in my personal understanding of things, few normal people would.

1. I don't know.  You didn't provide the information as to why the salary went up so much.  Were you trying to deceive people ?  Should we trust you to look into this further ?

2. Ok.  I'm glad you are moving on to a new argument.  Those jobs exist, for sure, but you can't deny they're plum.

3. Yes, I admit it.

4. The state of the 'average Canadian' is mostly independent of the issue of MP salaries.

5. Always... for awhile ?  Huh.

6. I don't dispute your outrage here, MyAta.  Not one bit.  And you are entitled to it.

[myata]

Here's why this problem has direct relation and application to the state of an average Canadian. The bureaucracy is entering the final phase of degradation of purpose and function:

- there's no checks or controls;

- it knows that there's no checks or controls;

- it knows that it can use total absence of checks and controls to reward itself to the max, and then;

- and now it's not even ashamed to display it publicly; the shame, attempts at explanations and justifications all in the past, not needed anymore; public employees and here's the contract.

There's no mechanism in the bureaucratic system to reverse this process once it started in earnest. And we have not built any mechanisms that could influence and reform it either. And so, degradation of the public administration in the country is the only logical option. I predict accelerating rates, and we've observed the first signs of it already.

[myata]

Let's maybe try to reset the discussion. Forget for a minute parties and ideologies. Even the bureaucracy, let's leave it aside for now. There's this question: why does the country needs massive immigration? It's not about all immigration or natural immigration; only deliberate and massive project of bringing more people into the country.

Is this question necessary? Is there a reason to have it brought up; discussed; to obtain answers and explanations; to hear how policy decisions are made and justified (or not)?

Or is it obvious to everybody outright? Or only to those who make these decisions without discussion and explanations? Or there's no need to ask any questions and explanations and oops we did it again some decades later would always suffice? Note though that this assumes that the result will always be repairable and reversible. Do we have that guarantee or assurance now, in this century though? What if at some point, oops, apology and compensation wouldn't be enough and won't fix much?

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/1/2021 at 6:13 AM, Michael Hardner said:

At least one of the articles I'm reading factors this in. The thing to keep in mind though is that the higher costs of housing have really only hit us in the last few years, so they may not be reflected instead to go to 2015 or so.

Housing price, like virtually any price, is a supply and demand issue.  There aren't enough homes being built (supply) to satisfy the demand.  But then Trudeau wants to bring in 400k+ immigrants per year, up from ~270k before Trudeau beat Harper about 5 years ago.

The solutions are:  build more homes (mostly a government red-tape issue at all levels of government) or decrease the demand (reduce immigration etc)