CdnFox Posted February 21, 2023 Report Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, bcsapper said: We're in a low, but only when compared to the last two years. No no - this is as low as it's been since 2009. But there's a lot of pent up market just waiting for the financial situation to stablize and when it does they'll come off the benches like mad, same as last time. Just now, bcsapper said: I considered moving to the east coast when I retired so I was keeping an eye on real estate and a small acreage with a decent house was well within my range until about two years ago. Then it went ridiculously out of range, and now it's fallen back to just well out of my range. LOL - not laughing at you but that kind of sounds like the bumper sticker of the entire real estate market for many right now Just now, bcsapper said: They do a thing called price history on Realtor.ca You wll have to trust me when I say I just went on there to find one and this is the first one I found: Sep 18, 2017 Sold $184,000 Jun 15, 2011 Sold $181,000 Apr 27, 2007 Sold $148,500 Jun 23, 2004 Sold $128,500 The house is currently listed at $349000 https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25282664/207-charles-road-timberlea-timberlea That's insane! yes although less so if you're talking about newfoundland or nova scotia for various reasons. But we've seen that kind of price hike in many areas. And "insane " is the right word for it. Historically prices for homes go up maybe 2 - 5 percent per year, slightly better than inflation. The big perk was that you controlled your mortgage so if interest rates didn't spike you were going to pay less than rent before long and protect yourself against future inflation for your living space. Now - there are simply not enough homes. People are desperate and will pay whatever they can afford to get into a home. For years now - MANY years - it's been a question of how much OVER asking should you put your offer in for and that's in many markets. If you don't get a home now, you might not get one ever is the common thought. With regards to the situation you specifically mention TONNES of people are retiring to the atlantics because they can sell their modest home in Vancouver/toronto etc for 1.5 million and buy acreage there for 350 k and have a hell of a retirement boost as well as a nice home. So 350 is nothing - but as competition goes up so do the prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2023 Report Share Posted February 21, 2023 32 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No no - this is as low as it's been since 2009. But there's a lot of pent up market just waiting for the financial situation to stablize and when it does they'll come off the benches like mad, same as last time. LOL - not laughing at you but that kind of sounds like the bumper sticker of the entire real estate market for many right now yes although less so if you're talking about newfoundland or nova scotia for various reasons. But we've seen that kind of price hike in many areas. And "insane " is the right word for it. Historically prices for homes go up maybe 2 - 5 percent per year, slightly better than inflation. The big perk was that you controlled your mortgage so if interest rates didn't spike you were going to pay less than rent before long and protect yourself against future inflation for your living space. Now - there are simply not enough homes. People are desperate and will pay whatever they can afford to get into a home. For years now - MANY years - it's been a question of how much OVER asking should you put your offer in for and that's in many markets. If you don't get a home now, you might not get one ever is the common thought. With regards to the situation you specifically mention TONNES of people are retiring to the atlantics because they can sell their modest home in Vancouver/toronto etc for 1.5 million and buy acreage there for 350 k and have a hell of a retirement boost as well as a nice home. So 350 is nothing - but as competition goes up so do the prices. I don't see how you can reconcile my example with your 2009 comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 On 2/20/2023 at 4:18 PM, CdnFox said: Honestly that's pretty much meaningless. There is one issue which is the source of ALL issues - we are not building enough homes for our population. We havent been for decades. Reports suggest we've fallen short 100 thousand homes per year just to prevent things from getting worse since 2016. And that's when they started looking, i guarantee it predates that. Perhaps it started in the 1980s when Mulroney tripled immigration. It's notable that the housing crisis has erupted since Trudeau came to power and began to drastically increase immigration. Yet in all the discussion of housing shortages few in government want to even mention the issue of immigration and its impact on housing. Nor the impact of bringing in hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers and hundreds of thousands of foreign students. https://cibccm.com/en/insights/articles/in-focus-housing-demand-from-newcomers-even-stronger-than-perceived/ https://thehub.ca/2021-07-23/howard-anglin-the-one-factor-in-the-housing-bubble-that-our-leaders-wont-talk-about/ https://thehub.ca/2023-02-03/john-pasalis-canadas-immigration-policies-are-driving-up-housing-costs/ https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sabrina-maddeaux-universities-escape-blame-for-soaring-rents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Perhaps it started in the 1980s when Mulroney tripled immigration. No, if anything prices were stagnant in the 1980s. 17 minutes ago, I am Groot said: It's notable that the housing crisis has erupted since Trudeau came to power and began to drastically increase immigration. In fact it did start before then. I would argue we saw it begin somewhere not long after the turn of the century, with a brief pause during the recession but then quickly making up ground. But - it became severely exacerbated during Justin's time and has now grown from a problem to a crisis and bordering on a national disaster and yes his immigration policy is making it much worse. You have to tie immigration levels into the increases in infrastructure or it will be a fail. At the end of the day tho it's about population. You have to make sure that your medical, educational, housing, etc is keeping pace with your population growth. Always. Whether that population is temporary or permanent, natural or immigrant, if you don't have basic resources pretty soon it gets ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 12 hours ago, CdnFox said: I would argue we saw it begin somewhere not long after the turn of the century, with a brief pause during the recession but then quickly making up ground. But - it became severely exacerbated during Justin's time and has now grown from a problem to a crisis and bordering on a national disaster and yes his immigration policy is making it much worse. You have to tie immigration levels into the increases in infrastructure or it will be a fail. At the end of the day tho it's about population. You have to make sure that your medical, educational, housing, etc is keeping pace with your population growth. Always. Whether that population is temporary or permanent, natural or immigrant, if you don't have basic resources pretty soon it gets ugly. You see the same phenomenon with housing prices in a lot of places, though, including places with lower and low immigration. But I absolutely agree that the government's inability to scale up infrastructure has been proven with these policies. Cutting immigration would have some pretty drastic effects on the economy at this point, but I am starting to think that those who would be hurt are the investors more than the workers and renters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: You see the same phenomenon with housing prices in a lot of places, though, including places with lower and low immigration. But I absolutely agree that the government's inability to scale up infrastructure has been proven with these policies. Cutting immigration would have some pretty drastic effects on the economy at this point, but I am starting to think that those who would be hurt are the investors more than the workers and renters. We need to be clear that the problem is not 'immigration'. Strong levels of immigration (certainly compared to other countries) is a positive thing for Canada. This really isn't about immigration. It's about not keeping infrastructure including houses, health, etc growing at the same rate as our population is. And just to be blunt - we are experiencing this worse than any other country anywhere by a huge factor. We build far fewer homes per capita than just about anyone else in the g7 and our population, both permanent and temporary, is growing at a very high rate per capita and accelerating. And worse - as i mentioned the way our whole system is structured currently developers will ALWAYS be building behind demand. In other words - if you cut immigration today development would slow within a short time and the problem would remain and grow worse albeit at a slightly slower pace. Solving this will require some pretty radical changes and the feds would likely have to lead that charge. And even if they do that the fact is that it will take a minimum of a decade after we start till the problem is brought under control, and possibly up to 2 before it's resolved and things are sloser to normal. What i'm concerned will happen is that people will grow impatient and a left wing gov't will offer to 'fix' the problem by building a bunch of 'gov't rental housing' in large numbers to rent out at 'affordable rates', and that will be a disaster in and of itself. Theres no big problems with a gov't doing that a little bit, but if they try solve this problem that way it will be a catastrophe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 56 minutes ago, CdnFox said: a left wing gov't will offer to 'fix' the problem by building a bunch of 'gov't rental housing' in large numbers to rent out at 'affordable rates', and that will be a disaster in and of itself. Well they have already done that. It's not helping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Well they have already done that. It's not helping. No, i mean LARGE numbers. Most provinces have some social housing, and that's fine. It's not really intended to resolve a shortage of housing. But what we have seen historically is that gov'ts try to take over a substantial hunk of the provision of new housing thinking the private market won't get it done fast enough or cheap enough - so they start building tens of thousands of 'govt rental' units. In England we saw a similar reaction back in the day where the gov't bought up housing and started to build row housing. The Iron Lady put an end to that disaster and turned things around but it had already gone very badly by then, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 14 minutes ago, CdnFox said: 1. No, i mean LARGE numbers. 2. In England we saw a similar reaction back in the day where the gov't bought up housing and started to build row housing. 1. It's just not feasible. The scale would have to be massive to make any difference. 2. Good example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. It's just not feasible. The scale would have to be massive to make any difference. Probably true. And it would tend to interrupt and disrupt the natural market forces even further, which means the problem gets worse. I did mention it would be a disaster But i don't know if that would stop them from trying. 17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. Good example ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 42 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No, i mean LARGE numbers. Most provinces have some social housing, and that's fine. It's not really intended to resolve a shortage of housing. But what we have seen historically is that gov'ts try to take over a substantial hunk of the provision of new housing thinking the private market won't get it done fast enough or cheap enough - so they start building tens of thousands of 'govt rental' units. In England we saw a similar reaction back in the day where the gov't bought up housing and started to build row housing. The Iron Lady put an end to that disaster and turned things around but it had already gone very badly by then, Could you expand a little on the row (terraced) house point. The house I grew up in was built in 1868, and it wasn't a new idea even then. Edited February 22, 2023 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 On 2/22/2023 at 9:48 AM, CdnFox said: We need to be clear that the problem is not 'immigration'. Strong levels of immigration (certainly compared to other countries) is a positive thing for Canada. Why? On 2/22/2023 at 9:48 AM, CdnFox said: This really isn't about immigration. Immigration is driving demand for housing. On 2/22/2023 at 9:48 AM, CdnFox said: It's about not keeping infrastructure including houses, health, etc growing at the same rate as our population is. There has been a shortage of tradesmen in Canada for years and it's been getting worse. Apparently, ramping up the immigration of Tim Hortons workers and software developers is not helping us grow the size of the trades population very much. In addition, Canada loves red tape. Every level of government wallows in bureaucracy. The more the better. It takes longer to push through the paperwork to do a reno than it does to do the reno. A developer who acquires land (at a high cost) can look forward to a decade or more of going through the bureaucracy, hearings, reports, legal queries and investigations before getting permission to build anything. According to the CD Howe Institute government delays, fees and taxes roughly double the cost of a new home. In short, we are NOT going to increase the volume of new housing. Full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 On 2/22/2023 at 10:45 AM, Michael Hardner said: Well they have already done that. It's not helping. The largest landlord in most cities is the city. And not a single one has the funds to properly maintain their housing stock even as they build more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 34 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Why? Why be clear? Because clarity is good 34 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Immigration is driving demand for housing. Demand for housing isn't the problem. There SHOULD be demand for housing. Demand for housing is a good thing. 34 minutes ago, I am Groot said: There has been a shortage of tradesmen in Canada for years and it's been getting worse. Apparently, ramping up the immigration of Tim Hortons workers and software developers is not helping us grow the size of the trades population very much. Trades haven't been the problem for the most part. In the last two years there's been an issue with trades as many people have taken early retirement during covid and now we're short people. But that's a pretty easy fix. The biggest parts of the problem lay elsewhere. This goes back at least a decade and probably closer to two. It IS fair to say that we shouldn't be radically increasing immigraiton till we address this, but the underlying problem here isn't immigration. 34 minutes ago, I am Groot said: In addition, Canada loves red tape. Every level of government wallows in bureaucracy. The more the better. It takes longer to push through the paperwork to do a reno than it does to do the reno. A developer who acquires land (at a high cost) can look forward to a decade or more of going through the bureaucracy, hearings, reports, legal queries and investigations before getting permission to build anything. According to the CD Howe Institute government delays, fees and taxes roughly double the cost of a new home. That is by far and away the biggest problem. And you're stratching the surface. Our tax policies mean that the developer is severely punished for finishing a home early or before it's sold, so they will NEVER build ahead of demand and will ALWAYS lag. How they borrow money to do projects is a little wonky too. There's a number of other problems. Regulation and taxation is probably the biggest problem and barrier we have. 34 minutes ago, I am Groot said: In short, we are NOT going to increase the volume of new housing. Full stop. Not unless someone does something significant. And there's a good chance that won't happen. Even if it does - it will take decades for the ship to right itself. Its' been estimated that we are over 1 million homes behind - that means we have to increase production to what it should be and THEN build another million homes to completely resolve the issue on top of that. Obviously if we at least improve production significantly we can stop the bleed, or make it slightly better, that would at least be something. But it won't happen under trudeau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Why be clear? Because clarity is good Apparently, I wasn't clear enough. Why is our mass immigration system good for Canada? 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Demand for housing isn't the problem. There SHOULD be demand for housing. Demand for housing is a good thing. Until demand exceeds supply. Then it's a bad thing. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: It IS fair to say that we shouldn't be radically increasing immigraiton till we address this, but the underlying problem here isn't immigration. There are a variety of problems that drive housing costs, but when you add a million and a half people (immigrants+foreign students+foreign workers) to an already saturated market you get an absolute mess. When the impact (intended) of that mass of newcomers is also to drive down wages you get an even worse problem. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Not unless someone does something significant. And there's a good chance that won't happen. Even if it does - it will take decades for the ship to right itself. Its' been estimated that we are over 1 million homes behind - that means we have to increase production to what it should be and THEN build another million homes to completely resolve the issue on top of that. Then it sounds like a good time to drastically cut immigration. In fact, to completely stop immigration, retool it to bring in specific types of people (ie, tradespeople, health care people, high tech workers, etc.) and then relaunch it in a smaller form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 41 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Apparently, I wasn't clear enough. Why is our mass immigration system good for Canada? Why immigration is good is a complicated topic, even for someone as verbose as me online I'll hit on the high points but i have to say the fact you use the term "mass" immigration suggests that you're already of a certain closed minded mindset. "Mass" immigration isn't a thing. There's just immigration. When does immigration fall below "mass" to just regular immigration in your mind It's a phrase used by people who are trying to express the idea that immigration is bad because MASS. Mass is code for 'too much". Mass hysteria, Mass destruction, etc etc. It's a negative word that has NO meaning whatsoever in this context. To very briefly answer your question though, we don't have enough births to increase our population naturally, and a declining population has a very very negative effect on the economy and investment into the country as well as causing labour issues. Serious talent also tends to leave declining populations as there's not the same level of opportunity generally speaking. Immigration has other side benefits such as bringing skills and methods that are different to ours that we can learn from. There's others as well but like i said - complex. So if we were having enough kids immigration wouldn't be AS positive but 41 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Until demand exceeds supply. Then it's a bad thing. Sure - but the obvious healthy answer there is to fix supply, not demand. If you've got more customers then you want to produce more supply, not kill the customers 41 minutes ago, I am Groot said: There are a variety of problems that drive housing costs, but when you add a million and a half people (immigrants+foreign students+foreign workers) to an already saturated market you get an absolute mess. When the impact (intended) of that mass of newcomers is also to drive down wages you get an even worse problem. Immigration doesn't drive down wages. That's a myth started by people who don't understand the stats. I can explain if you like. BUT - you are correct that if there is already not enough product to satisfy consumer demand, and you add more consumers, you make the problem worse. Immigration levels should absolutely be tied into increases in housing, education and medicine. IN other words - you can only let the population grow at the same rate that the supply of those three things is growing. There is also the matter of integration capacity but that's a separate issue. 41 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Then it sounds like a good time to drastically cut immigration. In fact, to completely stop immigration, retool it to bring in specific types of people (ie, tradespeople, health care people, high tech workers, etc.) and then relaunch it in a smaller form. We already bring in specific people, we use a points system currently. And stopping immigration would solve nothing at all as far as housing. With the way our system is set up, developers would just stop building houses. The shortage would remain. Edited February 24, 2023 by CdnFox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Why immigration is good is a complicated topic, even for someone as verbose as me online I'll hit on the high points but i have to say the fact you use the term "mass" immigration suggests that you're already of a certain closed minded mindset. You mean I actually read up on it, did research and made a decision? Yes, I did. That doesn't mean my mind is 'closed' to new evidence. You just have to present that evidence rather than an opinion with which I disagree. 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: "Mass" immigration isn't a thing. There's just immigration. When does immigration fall below "mass" to just regular immigration in your mind Hmm, perhaps when you walk around downtown and half the people don't speak English... Perhaps when your country is taking in people so fast it can no longer absorb them so that ethnic enclaves grow and spread and the new immigrants settle into them and have less interest in learning English (or French). This was reported by no less a source than Immigration Canada six years ago when the numbers were much lower than they are now. 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: It's a phrase used by people who are trying to express the idea that immigration is bad because MASS. Mass is code for 'too much". Do you believe there can never be too much immigration? 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Mass hysteria, Mass destruction, etc etc. It's a negative word that has NO meaning whatsoever in this context. You just said its meaning was 'too much'. 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: To very briefly answer your question though, we don't have enough births to increase our population naturally, and a declining population has a very very negative effect on the economy and investment into the country as well as causing labour issues. To a certain extent. The problem is that economists have said immigration is going to do little about this, and that the best way to deal with it is to simply push back the retirement age by a couple of years - which is what Harper did but Trudeau reversed. I might also add that our population was most certainly NOT declining prior to Trudeau's drastic increase in immigration. It was projected to rise to 50 million by the turn of the century. Also, a significant number of immigrants coming in are... not young... at all. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-has-abandoned-middle-class-says-b-c-s-former-top-civil-servant In fact, the Liberals have increased the number of elderly immigrants who can be sponsored three times since being elected (unsurprisingly this coincided with three elections). 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Serious talent also tends to leave declining populations as there's not the same level of opportunity generally speaking. I understand two-thirds of the graduates in computer engineering leave Canada shortly after graduating due to low wages, replaced by a steady steam of immigrants and temporary foreign workers willing to work more cheaply. 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Immigration has other side benefits such as bringing skills and methods that are different to ours that we can learn from. There's others as well but like i said - complex. But you ignore the less impressive side effects, such as their impact on housing, on crowding, on wages, on social cohesion, etc. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-has-abandoned-middle-class-says-b-c-s-former-top-civil-servant 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: So if we were having enough kids immigration wouldn't be AS positive but There's little evidence immigration, at least on this scale, would be positive then either. 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Immigration doesn't drive down wages. That's a myth started by people who don't understand the stats. I can explain if you like. This bank explains it nicely, I think. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canadian-wage-growth-lagging-u-s-because-of-immigration-levels-cibc-1.1704641 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: We already bring in specific people, we use a points system currently. The last informed opinion I read, some years back, said that 17% of immigrants come in under the points system. I tried to update that last year, going so far as to do an ATIP request from immigration Canada but they either didn't have the information or pretended they didn't. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul By the way, the standards for 'skilled' have been lowered in order to get higher numbers. They used to require 461 points. It's now uhm... 75. https://www.cdhowe.org/intelligence-memos/mahboubi-skuterud-–-economic-reality-check-canadian-immigration-part-ii Edited February 24, 2023 by I am Groot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: You mean I actually read up on it, did research and made a decision? No, that's basically the opposite of what i meant. Nobody who actually understands the issue uses the term 'Mass' immigration. It's the literary equivalent of going over an overpass with your turn signal on. It's like a sign to the world "blink blink, i'm clueless" But i was trying to be nice about it 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: Hmm, perhaps when you walk around downtown and half the people don't speak English... Perhaps when your country is taking in people so fast it can no longer absorb them so that ethnic enclaves grow and spread and the new immigrants settle into them and have less interest in learning English (or French). This was reported by no less a source than Immigration Canada six years ago when the numbers were much lower than they are now. No, most of that is just dumb. The first part is just kind of xenophobic - it's only 'mass' based on language? How does THAT work. Mass is a function of volume , not ethnicity. Yeash. THe rest is about as intelligent. The vast vast majorty of people speak english even if they can speak another language or even if they prefer one. My grandparents spoke german and russian at home quite a bit even tho they spoke perfect english - do you have some sort of problem with that? None of that makes any immigration "Mass". 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: Do you believe there can never be too much immigration? Sure. I think i mentioned some of the limiting factors i consider to be important. Quote "You just said its meaning was 'too much'. " No, i said it's used by people for that purpose to convey that sense but that it has no meaning in this context. Look at your own examples - "mass" immigration means you don't like the language they use. Well that isn't Mass. That just means you would prefer different immigrants who spoke a language you approve of. 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: The problem is that economists have said immigration is going to do little about this, and that the best way to deal with it is to simply push back the retirement age by a couple of years Which economists are those? I haven't seen any suggesting that. Pushing the retirement age back was really about addressing other problems. Still a good idea but different topic The person who ISN"T an economist by trade (although is by training many decades ago) doesn't say that. He doesn't talk about declining populations. He talks about trying to offset the boomer bubble with increased immigration, That is an ENTIRELY different issue. 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: I understand two-thirds of the graduates in computer engineering leave Canada shortly after graduating due to low wages, replaced by a steady steam of immigrants and temporary foreign workers willing to work more cheaply. If that were true there would be no problem. It is not. Sorry. 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: But you ignore the less impressive side effects, such as their impact on housing, on crowding, on wages, on social cohesion, etc. I literally addressed that directly. Well over a paragraph. So - maybe read a little before you comment. 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: There's little evidence immigration, at least on this scale, would be positive then either. There is a great deal that suggests it would. But the devil is always in the details of course. 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: This bank explains it nicely, I think. Oh dear. Well.... i guess we can see where the problem is. First - despite the headline the 'bank' doesn't really say much about immigration holding wages back. There's no detail. That leads me to believe that they're using the standard data. Well - the problem with that is right in the observation made by the 'bank' itself. The difference in immigraiton - which means the numbers are a little skewed. Here's how it works. Immigrants are NOT desirable for businesses for the most part. Most businesses would rather hire people who were raised here, speak the language and understand the culture perfectly, were educated in our systems and methods. etc. And they like strong ties to the community which come from being raised here. They will pay top dollar for Canadian workers outside of the most basic jobs. They will pay LESS for an immigrant because they are percieved as 'not as good', at least for a long time after the immigrant arrives So - they're willing to pay 30 for a canadian, and only 20 for an immigrant. In fact many will pay 35 to attract canadians and only 15 to an immigrant. So they don't drag down canadian wages. But look at the math. If you have 10 canadians earning 30 and 1 immirgant earning 15 then the average wage is 28.65 If you rack up immigration and now there's 10 canadians and 3 immigrants the average wage is only 26.53. oh noes - the wages are falling!!!! But it's still the same for the canadians. And it's still the same for immigrants. It's just the ratio that's changed. So immgration doesn't actually change wages. It just changes the 'average'. It' s a common misconception that businesses "want" immigrants because they're "lower wage" - but the reason they're lower wage is taht businesses don't want them. They'd rather have canadians if they can. Except mcdonalds or the like. 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: By the way, the standards for 'skilled' have been lowered in order to get higher numbers So raise them. You'll get no argument from me that trudeau is screwing up immigration which is something we were doing very well previously at least since 2006 when we made the last significant changes. But that doesn't mean we shoudn't have immigration. Your suggestion to stop it would not be a good thing,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: But i was trying to be nice about it Well, you're not very good at it. Nor are you very good at providing any evidence to support your full-throated support of... shall we call it 'extremely heavy' immigration so as to not trigger another diatribe on the word 'mass'. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: No, most of that is just dumb. The first part is just kind of xenophobic - it's only 'mass' based on language? How does THAT work. Did I say it's only mass based on language? I don't believe I did. I merely quoted part of a report from IMMIGRATION CANADA saying that fewer immigrants were learning the language, that ethnic enclaves were growing, and that Canada is reaching its absorptive capacity. But what do THEY know, eh? Maybe they're all just "xenophobes". 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: No, i said it's used by people for that purpose to convey that sense but that it has no meaning in this context. Look at your own examples - "mass" immigration means you don't like the language they use. You're just building straw men and shooting them down. This is not a debating tactic likely to impress anyone around here. At least, not doing it as obviously as you are anyway. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Well that isn't Mass. That just means you would prefer different immigrants who spoke a language you approve of. I mean, first, I never said that, and second, what do you imagine the 'language I approve of' might be? Uhm, German? Swahili? Urdu? Hey, how about ENGLISH? The one I actually understand? How dare I prefer immigrants speak an official language! Why, I must be some kind of 'xeno-phobe' 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Which economists are those? The ones in the cites I provided which you evidently didn't bother to read. But that's okay, because I didn't read any of your cites either! Of course, that could be because you haven't provided a bloody thing, aside from your opinion... 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: The person who ISN"T an economist by trade (although is by training many decades ago) doesn't say that. He doesn't talk about declining populations. He talks about trying to offset the boomer bubble with increased immigration, That is an ENTIRELY different issue. Ah, I see. But here's the thing. Canada's aging is the only issue. We do not have a declining population. As I pointed out earlier, our population was projected to grow to 50 million BEFORE Trudeau's big increases in immigration. Remember, I'm not calling for an end to immigration. I'm saying the current rate is too high and is unsustainable. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: If that were true there would be no problem. It is not. Sorry. Oh well. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/article-canada-facing-brain-drain-as-young-tech-talent-leaves-for-silicon/ 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: I literally addressed that directly. Well over a paragraph. So - maybe read a little before you comment. You mean where you denied immigration was a strong factor in stagnant wages, housing shortages or much of anything else bad? 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Immigrants are NOT desirable for businesses for the most part. Most businesses would rather hire people who were raised here, speak the language and understand the culture perfectly, were educated in our systems and methods. etc. And they like strong ties to the community which come from being raised here. And all of this is based on what evidence? Because in my experience what companies want is the cheapest worker who will do the job. And if that worker doesn't dare complain about extra, unpaid overtime that's a real plus. There are a lot of abuses taking place in our temporary foreign worker programs, and there seems to be employers eager to take advantage of it by offering substandard wages to deter Canadians from applying so they can hire foreign workers. That doesn't suggest what you wrote above is necessarily a reality. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: So they don't drag down canadian wages. The law of supply and demand is a real thing. And nothing you wrote above about preferences for Canadians is born out by evidence. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Your suggestion to stop it would not be a good thing,. I never suggested we stop it except temporarily, to realign it with Canada's actual needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Well, you're not very good at it. No. Suffering fools isn't my forte. Still working on it. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Nor are you very good at providing any evidence to support your full-throated support of... shall we call it 'extremely heavy' immigration so as to not trigger another diatribe on the word 'mass'. Awwww muffin, you're having delusions again I didn't support 'heavy' immigration at all. I very specifically said there needs to be specific restrictions and trudeau's screwing it up. See - this is why you wind up coming across as an uneducated buffoon. If you stuck to the facts and simply made your case you'd be better off. But when you realize you're wrong you get snappy. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Did I say it's only mass based on language? I don't believe I did. Yeah you did. I asked what makes immigration 'mass' and you said "well i hear people downtown talking other languages too much". So - that's what you said. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: I merely quoted part of a report from IMMIGRATION CANADA saying that fewer immigrants were learning the language, that ethnic enclaves were growing, and that Canada is reaching its absorptive capacity. As your answer to the question 'what does "Mass" immigration mean. Sooooooooo 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: But what do THEY know, eh? Maybe they're all just "xenophobes". No, they don't claim there's a problem with it or that there's too much immigration just because people speak a different language. So you're the only xenophobe so far. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: You're just building straw men and shooting them down. This is not a debating tactic likely to impress anyone around here. At least, not doing it as obviously as you are anyway. No, i'm literally taking what you said. No straw men. I commented on your specific answer. "Straw men" and "Gaslighting" and "goal posts" are usually the battle cry of people who are afraid they're losing an argument. Not always but mostly. Seems like the case here. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: I mean, first, I never said that, and second, what do you imagine the 'language I approve of' might be? Uhm, German? Swahili? Urdu? Hey, how about ENGLISH? The one I actually understand? Well only you would know for sure - all i can say is you think migration is 'mass" migration if the language in your downtown area is different than whatever one you like. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: How dare I prefer immigrants speak an official language! Why, I must be some kind of 'xeno-phobe' Yup. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: The ones in the cites I provided which you evidently didn't bother to read. I read fine. i don't think they quite say what you think they do ? and they certainly don't say that there's too much immigration because of language. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: But that's okay, because I didn't read any of your cites either! Well there were a lot of big words in them so you probably wouldn't have understood anyway. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Ah, I see. But here's the thing. Canada's aging is the only issue. We do not have a declining population. Nobody said we did. I said if we didn't have immigration we would. But we do have immigration So we dont. And aging is by far not the only issue. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: As I pointed out earlier, our population was projected to grow to 50 million BEFORE Trudeau's big increases in immigration. Yes - because we have immigration. Which was my point You said we should slow or better yet stop it. I said we can't stop it because if we do we would have negative growth. How is this confusing you, it's so simple. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: You mean where you denied immigration was a strong factor in stagnant wages, housing shortages or much of anything else bad? You mean where you imagine that and it never happened? Actually i said that population growth is a problem but the solution is to increase supply not decrease population. And you've not proven wages for canadians are stagnant in the slightest. And the only other 'bad' thing you mentioned was that the language down town isn't to your liking. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: And all of this is based on what evidence? Because in my experience what companies want is the cheapest worker who will do the job. Well i'm sure your career in macdonalds has lead you to conclude that but in the real world employers want the BEST employees with ties to the community so they don't up and leave. It doesn't apply to your kind of work, anyone can ask if someone wants fries with that. Right now due to shortages employers are hiring more immigrant workers than usual, but that's because there are no Canadian ones left basically. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: And if that worker doesn't dare complain about extra, unpaid overtime that's a real plus. There are a lot of abuses taking place in our temporary foreign worker programs, and there seems to be employers eager to take advantage of it by offering substandard wages to deter Canadians from applying so they can hire foreign workers. Sure - for farm work and macdonalds. You won't find that in the engineering sector. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: That doesn't suggest what you wrote above is necessarily a reality. Yes it does - it would be true regardless of whether employers preferred immigrants or not. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: The law of supply and demand is a real thing. And nothing you wrote above about preferences for Canadians is born out by evidence. Nothing you've shown shows employers prefer low wage low skilled staff either. But there are studies out there. I just don't waste time digging them up for those who can't read and are pre-prejudiced. You can find them if you feel like stepping out of your echo chamber. They've done lots of research into how immigrants fare after coming to canada and what holds them back. Language is number one - if they can't speak english they struggle. Most can. AFter that it's that without an employment track record in canada employers don't want to hire them. For exaclty the reasons i said. So if they HAVE to they do at lower wages. That gap shrinks over time as the immigant establishes themselves, but they will tend to lag at least a little always. They just won't have the work experience and established record of people who were born here. Nor the same contacts as a rule. 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: I never suggested we stop it except temporarily, to realign it with Canada's actual needs. Even temporarily hurts us. Unless you mean like 'for a week'. And as i pointed out it wouldn't actually make any difference because of the way our real estate system is structured. There'd be a very short blip and then we'd be underbuilding again. The only difference is it would take that much more effort to ramp back up when you started immigration again and so the problem would be worse. Like i said before you lost your marbles, the solution has to be to increase supply, not repress demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 26, 2023 Report Share Posted February 26, 2023 (edited) 20 hours ago, CdnFox said: No. Suffering fools isn't my forte. Still working on it. Try working on logic first. 20 hours ago, CdnFox said: Awwww muffin, you're having delusions again I didn't support 'heavy' immigration at all. I very specifically said there needs to be specific restrictions and trudeau's screwing it up. No, what you did was launch a half page of sputtering outrage at my use of the word 'mass', saying it suggested I was opposed to immigration and that this was a terrible crime. You... do know that your post is still there, right? You honestly write like one of those frenzied woke types who got triggered because someone dared to question immigration. 20 hours ago, CdnFox said: See - this is why you wind up coming across as an uneducated buffoon. You ever hear that line that goes something like "If everywhere you go everyone is an assh0le it's probably YOU that's the assh0le?" Because I think you ought to take a gander in a mirror. 20 hours ago, CdnFox said: If you stuck to the facts and simply made your case you'd be better off. Ayep. That's what I've done, with numerous cites you didn't read or couldn't understand And in return, you've presented your opinion and insults and nothing else. I'm deleting the rest of your spew. It's a lot of angry-Karen-type ranting. I'd say you've amply demonstrated your knowledge of immigration is basically zero, as is your ability to discuss things like an intelligent, mature adult. Maybe try working on your lack of social skills. Edited February 26, 2023 by I am Groot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted February 26, 2023 Report Share Posted February 26, 2023 The median income in the country is just under $40K (before Covid). Median household, under $100K. A two-bedroom apartment in a city, up to 2K. Do the calculation, with a single income and kids. Then about a half of the population doesn't have that (the definition of median). From these numbers, a half of single parent families in the country has to be poor. MP salary is $185K and the next automatic annual rise coming. Think of it: a novice MP makes a double of the half of the families in the country. How far is it to the third world? Are we there yet, daddy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougar Posted March 19, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2023 On 2/20/2023 at 6:59 AM, West said: The governments move to communism. Shoot up housing prices through low interest rates then crank up rates so people foreclose. That's the plan... very sick people First you have to know that no nation has reached true communism. They aspired but failed. There was socialism in many countries. In the one I lived, you paid your mortgage off in about 10-15 years, but then you were on a wait list for 5-10 years to buy a Russian made car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougar Posted March 19, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2023 (edited) On 2/25/2023 at 10:01 PM, myata said: MP salary is.......... I think I suggested to you to go get yourself checked. You are shortening you own life dwelling on the MP salaries that you cannot change. Edited March 19, 2023 by cougar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougar Posted March 19, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2023 (edited) On 2/20/2023 at 5:40 AM, ExFlyer said: Like so many others, bought what they thought they deserved and then the reality hammer hit them in the wallet. I think what bothers me in the article is something else. The typical story in the country is of people who are stuck paying rent for decades and unable to buy a place. This article basically says to me: If you just came to Canada, you can expect to buy a $750,000 house for your wife, two new vehicles and even add two dogs to your household, but be careful as interest rates are going up. You would have been perfectly fine if you bought a slightly smaller house and had only one car and one dog. All immigrants to Canada can expect to achieve this in 3 years, Brazilians, Mexicans, Philippinos, Indians - everyone. Edited March 19, 2023 by cougar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.