Why are governments driving down wages with immigration?

[I am Groot]

Don Wright, former head of the BC public service, and PHD in economics thinks the federal government is deliberately driving down wages on behalf of business and against the interests of ordinary Canadians. I find this odd since this government is the self-proclaimed government of the 'middle class'. Why would it do such a thing?

 

The federal government, supported by most provinces, has decided to oblige the business lobby with significant changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, increasing the number of hours per week that international students can work, as well as pushing immigration levels higher. In other words, they are engineering an increase in the supply of labour to hold down wages.

That has come after a virtually non-stop narrative over the last few years about a “worker shortage” in Canada. Businesses are regularly quoted complaining that they cannot find enough workers, and business associations constantly lobby governments to do something about it – usually by bringing in more workers from other countries, either on a temporary or permanent basis.

But in economics, the notion of a shortage of supply in any market is, at best, half-baked. A market balances supply and demand. If there is a “shortage” of supply, then the price in that market rises until the amount supplied is equal to the amount demanded.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-about-that-worker-shortage-why-are-governments-helping-drive-down/

Edited December 9, 2022 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

  I find this odd since this government is the self-proclaimed government of the 'middle class'. Why would it do such a thing? 

Your statement should be read in a mocking tone.

Also please cite this to any posters here who refer to Trudeau as a 'Marxist'.

Good post.

[Moonbox]

There are two factors at play here.  First, we have problematic demographic trends.  That our population would actually shrink without immigration is a concern we can't ignore.  

The other factor, of course, is how lax the government is in finding the right immigrants (higher skill, coming with cash), and how permissive our governments have been with international corporations and wealthy-favored tax policy.  I spent most of my life opposing unions, but when I look at companies like Amazon, or the transport/logistic firms that support them, I see myself starting to lean the other way.  

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your statement should be read in a mocking tone.

Also please cite this to any posters here who refer to Trudeau as a 'Marxist'.

Good post.

It was, of course, meant in a mocking way. Justin Trudeau has demonstrated over the past seven  years that he has no principles, and that his interests are laser focused on self-promotion.

Edited December 9, 2022 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

There are two factors at play here.  First, we have problematic demographic trends.  That our population would actually shrink without immigration is a concern we can't ignore.  

And do you know how long it will take before our population shrinks? Many decades. Besides which, no one is suggesting we completely eliminate immigration. But there never was any justification for the huge increases we've seen from this government. And those increases are helping to make housing unaffordable even as they push down wages.

 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The other factor, of course, is how lax the government is in finding the right immigrants (higher skill, coming with cash),

Immigration is nothing but a political tool for the Liberals. So is refugee policy. Neither is based on principle, or any forecasted need for Canada. And obviously, the wider the net you cast, the more people you seek to bring in, the lower your standards have to be. We saw that earlier in the year when the CD Howe Institute, which has always been pro-immigration, warned that the government's plans to lower the skill level required for immigration would result in lower economic success for immigrants.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

and how permissive our governments have been with international corporations and wealthy-favored tax policy.  I spent most of my life opposing unions, but when I look at companies like Amazon, or the transport/logistic firms that support them, I see myself starting to lean the other way.  

The biggest problem for international corps is how to ensure they pay proper taxes in the countries where they operate. They should never receive more favorable tax treatment than native companies, but they do.

[myata]

Poor people are easier to control with little handouts cementing the grip on the power. And buddy-business revolving door. And tradition of simple bandaid fixes ahead of intelligent solutions for tomorrow that entrenched bureaucracy simply not capable of. All playing into the same end. Soon we could be like Russia - very big and equally clueless.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Don Wright, former head of the BC public service, and PHD in economics thinks the federal government is deliberately driving down wages on behalf of business and against the interests of ordinary Canadians. I find this odd since this government is the self-proclaimed government of the 'middle class'. Why would it do such a thing?

Leftist parties pretend to be champions of the poor causes but in reality it's the opposite.

"WE HATE GREENHOUSE GASES" = we're enemies of domestic energy & proponents of carbon taxes = rich people like Trudeau and Biden are unaffected when energy prices soar, poor people can't afford to drive cars or heat their houses.

"WE LOVE IMMIGRATION" = more cheap labour for rich people like the Trudeaus and Bidens, more competition for jobs and low-income housing for the poorest people currently living in the country.  

It's a real lesson in propaganda to look at how well the Dems/Libs sell their "WE LOVE THE POOR!!!! (hehe, we actually harm the poor)" policies to the poor in order to get their vote. They're evil geniuses. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Don Wright, former head of the BC public service, and PHD in economics thinks the federal government is deliberately driving down wages on behalf of business and against the interests of ordinary Canadians. I find this odd since this government is the self-proclaimed government of the 'middle class'. Why would it do such a thing?

To meet the needs of people who lobby the government would be my guess.

Probably why the wealth gap and CO2 emissions have continued unabated under Trudeau's watch as well.  

[I am Groot]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

To meet the needs of people who lobby the government would be my guess.

Probably why the wealth gap and CO2 emissions have continued unabated under Trudeau's watch as well.  

There was an article I posted the other day about the parliamentary budget officer, using UN stats on climate saying that basically we were going to spend more money on trying to diminish our own CO2 than the economic damage which might be caused in eight years by unrestrained climate change. And the people it's mainly harming are rural and poor.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And the people it's mainly harming are rural and poor.

That's why we kind of determined decades ago that the wealthy should bear a greater cost so everyone makes it through the transition away from fossil fuels together in more or less one piece - shared pain for shared gain, especially at the global scale.

I'll be keeping an eye on the only metric that I think most accurately measures if that's occurring - the rate at which the wealth gap expands or contracts. But I'm not holding my breath given where we are at the present which is still pretty deep into expansion mode.

Speaking of half-baked notions as the quote from the OP article mentions is the notion of 'market'. The market we putatively claim to exist in is global and presumably without borders for good and services but still not labour.  It's already 2022 and long past the point that should still be an issue, I think, but it is what it is.

[I am Groot]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's why we kind of determined decades ago that the wealthy should bear a greater cost so everyone makes it through the transition away from fossil fuels together in more or less one piece - shared pain for shared gain, especially at the global scale.

Yeah, funny thing about that. There was a column in the Post a few days back which pointed out that since the Paris accord emissions from the West have more or less levelled off but China, who we continue to portray as a 'developing' country has quadrupled their emissions. They now emit more than all the developed world combined. And as for the justification that the West is obligated to compensate others because the warming due to CO2 is their fault China has emitted more CO2 in the last eight years than the UK has done since the Industrial Revolution. And in just the first quarter of this year they greenlighted 8.3 gigawatts of new coal powered electricity.

Yet somehow they're exempt, not only for paying money to poorer nations but from cutting their emissions.

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'll be keeping an eye on the only metric that I think most accurately measures if that's occurring - the rate at which the wealth gap expands or contracts.

Really? So you're saying this climate change accord is really designed as an income redistribution system rather than for climate change? That is what the opponents have been saying for some years, after all.

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Speaking of half-baked notions as the quote from the OP article mentions is the notion of 'market'. The market we putatively claim to exist in is global and presumably without borders for good and services but still not labour.  It's already 2022 and long past the point that should still be an issue, I think, but it is what it is.

The inevitable result of such an outlook would be that the standard of living in Canada would have to plummet to levels not seen in generations. 

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeah, funny thing about that. There was a column in the Post a few days back which pointed out that since the Paris accord emissions from the West have more or less levelled off but China, who we continue to portray as a 'developing' country has quadrupled their emissions. They now emit more than all the developed world combined. And as for the justification that the West is obligated to compensate others because the warming due to CO2 is their fault China has emitted more CO2 in the last eight years than the UK has done since the Industrial Revolution. And in just the first quarter of this year they greenlighted 8.3 gigawatts of new coal powered electricity.

Yet somehow they're exempt, not only for paying money to poorer nations but from cutting their emissions.

Anyone exceeding expectations they agreed to should be called to account. 

Quote

Really? So you're saying this climate change accord is really designed as an income redistribution system rather than for climate change? That is what the opponents have been saying for some years, after all.

No, it was designed to allocate responsibility for climate action based on CO2 already emitted by developed countries at the time of the accord to allow developing countries to emit what was determined would be fair in allowing them to catch up and have living standards closer to being on par with our's.  Opponents call it a redistribution system with the intent to conflate the accord with communism - you people have successfully used the commie bogyman to minimize progress for decades now.   

Quote

The inevitable result of such an outlook would be that the standard of living in Canada would have to plummet to levels not seen in generations.

It is now only because you've succeeded at blunting action to the extent that adaptation is the only feasible option and where plummeting standards of living will be the inevitable norm for the vast majority of human beings.

I honestly do not know why you're complaining...if the today's accelerating rate CO2 emissions is anything to go by you Brownies have curbed-stomped the Greenies, hands down, EOS.  It's not even close.

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And do you know how long it will take before our population shrinks? Many decades. Besides which, no one is suggesting we completely eliminate immigration. But there never was any justification for the huge increases we've seen from this government. And those increases are helping to make housing unaffordable even as they push down wages.

It's not about population shrinking.  Our economy is built on our population growing into our space and our (presumably) infrastructure projects.  If it stops growing, it's in trouble.  

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Immigration is nothing but a political tool for the Liberals. So is refugee policy. Neither is based on principle, or any forecasted need for Canada.

Liberal immigration policy is a political tool for them.  I agree.  Immigration itself is still necessary.  Separate the two and we would have a lot on which we could agree.  

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The biggest problem for international corps is how to ensure they pay proper taxes in the countries where they operate. They should never receive more favorable tax treatment than native companies, but they do.

Agreed again.  It's probably the biggest problem, but not the only one.  

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Anyone exceeding expectations they agreed to should be called to account. 

Whoever calls China to account for anything?

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it was designed to allocate responsibility for climate action based on CO2 already emitted by developed countries at the time of the accord to allow developing countries to emit what was determined would be fair in allowing them to catch up and have living standards closer to being on par with our's.

Why should they have the same living standard as us? Why are we the median? And what makes you think that simply pumping out more CO2s is going to EVER allow them to catch up to our living standards given the massive corruption and incompetence of most developing world governments? As I pointed out, China has already exceeded the entire contributions of the UK since the industrial revolution. Why then is the UK expected to pay billions of dollars while China is to actually receive money?

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

 Opponents call it a redistribution system with the intent to conflate the accord with communism - you people have successfully used the commie bogyman to minimize progress for decades now.   

There is no question. None, that the redistribution scheme has Marxist origins. Even your own words attest to that. We must all have equal living standards regardless of which of us is more skilled, talented, organized, educated, capable, honest and hard-working? What is that but Marxism, where no one ever gets ahead and everyone lives in poverty? China and India don't have the same standard of living as us? Maybe if they stopped funneling so much money into their militaries, including nuclear weapons and submarines we can't afford they'd do better.

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

It is now only because you've succeeded at blunting action to the extent that adaptation is the only feasible option

Blunting what actions? The West has spent hundreds of billions on lowering CO2 while the developing world has essentially spent nothing while vastly increasing their CO2 emissions, often through the building of new coal power plants. And we're expected to keep doing this because equal living standards.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Whoever calls China to account for anything?

I don't know, I was getting cancelled as a commie for criticizing global trade with China and dictators in general 25 years ago. Nowadays the same people call me a commie for ridiculing the poor quality of the criticisms they level at the Trudeau's and Biden's of the world - that they're Marxist dictators for example.

Quote

Why should they have the same living standard as us?

You like adding a streak of hyperbole in your reply to things don't you? I did not say the same living standards as our's I said closer to being on par with them.  I'm also not assuming our's will keep keep rising relative to theirs and in fact I expect it to drop.  Take our health systems for example and other things in our economy are looking pretty shabby too.  I think mostly due to the ridiculous political climate we've created but there are clearly some seriously unacknowledged sustainability issues in our production of food such as desertification and droughts and fisheries mismanagement.

Quote

1.Why are we the median?

2.And what makes you think that simply pumping out more CO2s is going to EVER allow them to catch up to our living standards given the massive corruption and incompetence of most developing world governments?

1.We're more of an example than a median but as I pointed out there's no reason that median will move us closer to being on par with developing countries. 

2. I won't be surprised in the least to see their emissions drop due to the fact their governments are so lousy it'll undermine their capacity to emit by wrecking their economies through incompetence.  Unfortunately this will only worsen their situation because impoverished people usually make poor stewards of their environments because they simply can't afford to be good stewards - it costs money to be that. 

Quote

As I pointed out, China has already exceeded the entire contributions of the UK since the industrial revolution. Why then is the UK expected to pay billions of dollars while China is to actually receive money?

I do not know. I would have expected payments to have been suspended on the basis of China's crappy regard for human rights and generally being a trouble-making geopolitical vandal years and years ago.

Quote

Blunting what actions? The West has spent hundreds of billions on lowering CO2 while the developing world has essentially spent nothing while vastly increasing their CO2 emissions, often through the building of new coal power plants.

We've increased our emissions too because we've also put an enormous amount of effort into resisting action or worse overlooking and ignoring certain emissions, like methane.  Like I said we're more of an example than a median.

Quote

 

And we're expected to keep doing this because equal living standards.

 

That was the plan but I certainly don't expect us to keep up anymore effort than before.  Like I've said, you guys have won the day on that front.  The only thing that will slow us down now are the sustainability issues and other mounting impacts of climate change we've already caused.

Edited December 10, 2022 by eyeball

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's not about population shrinking.  Our economy is built on our population growing into our space and our (presumably) infrastructure projects.  If it stops growing, it's in trouble.  

You know very well that is a ponzi scheme which can have only one ending. The higher our population goes the more immigrants would be needed to keep it growing at the new pace. Eventually it's simply not possible. Plus, this new increase will grow our population more than anyone in the G7. We didn't need it. We were doing fine with the number we were bringing in under Harper. And unlike the current numbers, those were manageable and we didn't need to decrease our standards to achieve them.

 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Liberal immigration policy is a political tool for them.  I agree.  Immigration itself is still necessary.  Separate the two and we would have a lot on which we could agree.  

Saying immigration is necessary is itself bowing to the inevitability of the current birth rate staying as it is despite no actual effort by any level of government to improve it. And then there's the question of how many are necessary. The present increased immigration amount is demonstrably NOT necessary.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

You like adding a streak of hyperbole in your reply to things don't you? I did not say the same living standards as our's I said closer to being on par with them. 

That is a pretty damned finicky callout on your part. What does closer to being on par mean then? Because technically they are already closer to being on par with us than they were ten years ago. Happy now?

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm also not assuming our's will keep keep rising relative to theirs and in fact I expect it to drop. 

Yes, that is what I said. Everything we do here is based on the cost of energy. The more expensive a component of costs we make energy the poorer we will be. That's without funneling hundreds of billions to third world countries.

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

1.We're more of an example than a median but as I pointed out there's no reason that median will move us closer to being on par with developing countries. 

You just said above that you expect ours to drop.

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

2. I won't be surprised in the least to see their emissions drop due to the fact their governments are so lousy it'll undermine their capacity to emit by wrecking their economies through incompetence.  Unfortunately this will only worsen their situation because impoverished people usually make poor stewards of their environments because they simply can't afford to be good stewards - it costs money to be that. 

But why should we be blamed if their corrupt governments funnel money into their secret bank accounts or build gigantic monuments to themselves, or put massive amounts of money into their military instead of either helping their people or cutting back on CO2 emissions?

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I do not know. I would have expected payments to have been suspended on the basis of China's crappy regard for human rights and generally being a trouble-making geopolitical vandal years and years ago.

China is not alone in its crappy regard for human rights. And the Paris accord makes no notice or distinction between developing countries which are genuinely trying to lower Co2 emissions and those which put billions into their military like China, India and others do. Should we send money to help fund Iran's weapons production so they can send more to Russia? Should we fund Turkey so it can better slaughter the Kurds? What about Venezuela? Nicaragua? Uzbekistan? Myanmar?

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

We've increased our emissions too because we've also put an enormous amount of effort into resisting action

Canada has increased its population significantly, and intends to continue doing so. Perhaps a higher emission amount is related to that.

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

That was the plan but I certainly don't expect us to keep up anymore effort than before.  Like I've said, you guys have won the day on that front.  

The West has put a ton of effort into this. The rest of the world, nada. If I'd won the day we'd be building lots of nukes, not hobbling our economy by increasing the cost of energy while shipping dollars to countries building coal power plants.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

But why should we be blamed if their corrupt governments funnel money into their secret bank accounts

Because we all to often let them funnel their corrupt money here.

Quote

China is not alone in its crappy regard for human rights. And the Paris accord makes no notice or distinction between developing countries which are genuinely trying to lower Co2 emissions and those which put billions into their military like China, India and others do. Should we send money to help fund Iran's weapons production so they can send more to Russia? Should we fund Turkey so it can better slaughter the Kurds? What about Venezuela? Nicaragua? Uzbekistan? Myanmar?

I know the Paris Accord has little if any real issue with dictators, it was a product after all of a bunch of countries who also didn't.

Quote

The West has put a ton of effort into this. The rest of the world, nada. If I'd won the day we'd be building lots of nukes, not hobbling our economy by increasing the cost of energy while shipping dollars to countries building coal power plants.

If II was in charge I'd build more nukes too but they probably wouldn't like the safety and regulatory regime I'd subject them to.  I'm almost convinced at times that maybe Canada should adopt a screw everything before it screws us mentality. The biggest problem is that I have grand-kids. 

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Because we all to often let them funnel their corrupt money here.

We can't stop organized crime from funneling money. What makes you think we could stop dictators?

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

I know the Paris Accord has little if any real issue with dictators, it was a product after all of a bunch of countries who also didn't.

If II was in charge I'd build more nukes too but they probably wouldn't like the safety and regulatory regime I'd subject them to.  I'm almost convinced at times that maybe Canada should adopt a screw everything before it screws us mentality. The biggest problem is that I have grand-kids. 

AFAIK no Canadian reactor has ever presented much of a threat. And this is with 30-40 year old technology since no new ones have been built since then. And while I'm willing to put ourselves out to help foreigners to a degree, hobbling our economy to help countries building coal plants or spending billions on weapons is just not okay for me. Especially since no matter what Canada does it will have no noticeable impact on global emissions anyway.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We can't stop organized crime from funneling money. What makes you think we could stop dictators?

Principles, once upon a time.  Nowadays...let it all burn to the ground and start fresh...take a break for a couple hundred years.

[Moonbox]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You know very well that is a ponzi scheme which can have only one ending. The higher our population goes the more immigrants would be needed to keep it growing at the new pace. Eventually it's simply not possible.

First off, you're using the term ponzi scheme horribly wrong.  Second, you're horribly wrong even if you didn't muff your rhetoric.  You're offering a slippery slope argument based on bad assumptions and a very misguided view of how our economy functions.  

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Saying immigration is necessary is itself bowing to the inevitability of the current birth rate staying as it is despite no actual effort by any level of government to improve it. And then there's the question of how many are necessary. The present increased immigration amount is demonstrably NOT necessary.

Maybe this level isn't necessary, and certainly our standards are lax, but immigration in general is necessary because the birth rates are low and not likely to improve anytime soon.  If you can offer an argument and/or solution to how to convince women to have at least 3 kids each on average, I'm listening.  ?

[myata]

Canada immigration is now at 1% annually of the population, planned to go up to 2.5% in the near future. In 10 years and proportionally to the voting population it could cause a massive change in voting patterns. This is a massive, unprecedented experiment and we're doing it in an autopilot mode, without as much as an intelligent reflection and discussion in the society, handing all reins to the default, entrenched governing party. This kind of thinking and responsibility for the future is guaranteed to blow in our faces at some point. The question is when, not if.

[Moonbox]

So everything is bad, we need to do SOMETHING.  Thanks for the thoughtful insights myata.  ?

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, myata said:

Canada immigration is now at 1% annually of the population, planned to go up to 2.5% in the near future. In 10 years and proportionally to the voting population it could cause a massive change in voting patterns. This is a massive, unprecedented experiment and we're doing it in an autopilot mode, without as much as an intelligent reflection and discussion in the society, handing all reins to the default, entrenched governing party. This kind of thinking and responsibility for the future is guaranteed to blow in our faces at some point. The question is when, not if.

In less than 20 years 51% of the population will be foreign born and their Canadian born kids. Given we were already bringing people over so fast we weren't able to properly integrate them - and that we've substantially increased that intake, Canada's culture and values, not to mention the governments elected, will become a product of what these foreigners and their kids desire with scant regard for Canadian traditions and values - including freedom of speech, religion and the commitment to democracy, compromise and trust.

Edited December 11, 2022 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

First off, you're using the term ponzi scheme horribly wrong.  Second, you're horribly wrong even if you didn't muff your rhetoric.

The comparison works quite well and you know it. In order to continue successfully more and more and ever more immigrants have to be brought in and in ever greater numbers. 

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You're offering a slippery slope argument based on bad assumptions and a very misguided view of how our economy functions.  

Slippery slope? It's more like a cliff. And I know very well how our economy works, thanks. I also know that government is funded by 50% of the population while the rest get their services for free. And that the more people in that second category the harder it is for those in the first category it is to pay for them.

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Maybe this level isn't necessary, and certainly our standards are lax, but immigration in general is necessary because the birth rates are low and not likely to improve anytime soon.  If you can offer an argument and/or solution to how to convince women to have at least 3 kids each on average, I'm listening.  ?

Because we've tried nothing and so obviously nothing will work. I'm not a demographics expert, not one in propaganda. I do know that the culture/values of our population have changed radically in a short period of time with the aid of the singular propaganda focus of our progressive media. We went from a country which disdained the kind of openly patriotic gestures we mocked Americans for to a culture where we painted our faces and wrapped ourselves in the flag in less than 20 years. We went from a country where the Liberal government with a majority had to withdraw its own marriage legislation because it's own MPs were threatening not to vote for it unless it was changed to make it clear it did not allow for gay marriage to one where gay marriage was widely accepted in the space of 20 years.

The cultural values of a people can be shaped by media propaganda extolling the virtues of this or that thing. Maybe the government ought to give that a try, extolling the virtues of family life and multiple children. Of course, it's hard to do that when nobody can afford a house because we're bringing over massive waves of immigrants, students and temporary foreign workers every year.