Canada's population will hit record 40M on Friday: StatCan

[CdnFox]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-population-will-hit-record-40m-on-friday-statcan-1.6442311

Statistics Canada says the country will reach a new milestone on Friday as the population hits a record 40 million people.

The agency's Population Clock — a tool that models real-time growth using factors such as births, deaths and migration — will reach the 40-million mark just before 3 p.m. EDT, StatCan said in a news release.

Canada continues to lead the G7 in population growth, StatCan says, with the country adding more than one million people between January 2021 and 2022 for the most ever in a single year.

Meanwhile new home starts have actually slowed down.

So while we're breaking records for bringing people in, we're losing ground on home starts that were too low for the population we used to have.

we're top in immigration for the g7 but very bottom for homes per capita and falling.

I'm sure this will end well.

[ExFlyer]

Yup, we are now 40 million.

Whining about no housing is stupid. People are living somewhere now, where they choose or can afford.

We do not owe anyone housing. Those socialists that claim we do are conservative do gooders...give everyone everything for free.

We need people to work as too many Canadians seem to think they get what they want for free.

Edited June 17, 2023 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Whining abut no housing stupid. People are living somewhere now, where they choose or can afford.

You never miss a chance to look like an !diot do you  "Social Planning is stupid because if there's no where for people to live they can live where they choose to live. DERP!"

 A lot of people can't "choose' now. THere aren't enough homes so prices are so high that they can't afford to live anywhere. Rents are becoming unaffordable and are still going up.

That's becoming a serious problem.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

We do not owe anyone housing. Those socialists that claim we do are conservative do gooders...give everyone everything for free.

Sure - the conservatives are all out there demanding people get stuff for free Everyone knows that. 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

We need people to work as too many Canadians seem to think

Looks to me like the real problem is that too many Canadians don't think. Some of them post here

 If we dont' get very serious very fast about the crisis in our infrastructure vs our population growth, it will get to a point where it cannot be fixed in any practical time frame and that will result in very significant social unrest.

[I am Groot]

In 1960 the population was under 18 million. A house cost 2.5 times your annual income, and a car was half your annual income.

Now the average house costs over ten times the average income, and the average new car costs almost the entirety of the average income.

In what way has Canada benefited from doubling its population?

[suds]

We have cold winters, high costs of living, housing shortages, doctor shortages, inflation.....  and oddly enough Canada doesn't keep any statistics on the retention rates of newly arrived immigrants. Perhaps because there's no accurate way of doing so. I think I'd try my luck in the US where at least the weather's nicer and the cost of living's more realistic.

[suds]

43 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

In what way has Canada benefited from doubling its population?

If life was stagnant there would be no benefit. But life isn't stagnant. People get older and expect pensions, infrastructure deteriorates, and governments can't help themselves from going into more and more debt.  So governments require increased economic growth to generate more and more revenue to sustain funding these (in many cases) unfunded liabilities such as debt, pensions, and infrastructure upkeep. The easiest way to increase economic growth (and revenues) is to expand the workforce and therefore the population as a whole. If this sounds like a ponzi scheme, it is.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Social Planning is stupid

“It practically has the word ‘socialist’ right in the name!”

Edited June 16, 2023 by BeaverFever

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, suds said:

If life was stagnant there would be no benefit.

So everyone wear pink hats. There, you've got your change. Does it make anything better? Nope.

1 hour ago, suds said:

People get older and expect pensions, infrastructure deteriorates, and governments can't help themselves from going into more and more debt.

Would you like to hazard a guess about whether we're in more debt today than we were when our population was half as big? Even allowing for proportion and inflation?

1 hour ago, suds said:

 

  So governments require increased economic growth to generate more and more revenue to sustain funding these (in many cases) unfunded liabilities such as debt, pensions, and infrastructure upkeep. The easiest way to increase economic growth (and revenues) is to expand the workforce and therefore the population as a whole. If this sounds like a ponzi scheme, it is.

Yeah, it is. Because bringing in more people over to pay more taxes also means more government services have to be supplied. And if a large number of those people are unskilled or low-skilled labour then under our proportionate tax system they aren't going to be contributing anything to the budget anyway. They'll just be a net draw.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

“It practically has the word ‘socialist’ right in the name!”

LOL - well that doesn't mean it's the same - it's like how  Biden has Bid right in it but that doesn't mean he's for sale .. Ohhh..  wait a minute... BAD EXAMPLE! BAD EXAMPLE!   Lets start over.....

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by CdnFox

[ExFlyer]

On 6/16/2023 at 4:09 PM, CdnFox said:

You never miss a chance to look like an !diot do you  "Social Planning is stupid because if there's no where for people to live they can live where they choose to live. DERP!"

 A lot of people can't "choose' now. THere aren't enough homes so prices are so high that they can't afford to live anywhere. Rents are becoming unaffordable and are still going up.

That's becoming a serious problem.

Sure - the conservatives are all out there demanding people get stuff for free Everyone knows that. 

Looks to me like the real problem is that too many Canadians don't think. Some of them post here

 If we dont' get very serious very fast about the crisis in our infrastructure vs our population growth, it will get to a point where it cannot be fixed in any practical time frame and that will result in very significant social unrest.

Canada needs population growth. Canadians are not doing the work that needs to be done so they have to get immigrants.

Canadians want to much but, they don't want to work or suffer for it. That is why immigrant families quickly become better off then many Canadians.

[SpankyMcFarland]

As a serial immigrant myself I certainly support legal immigration but I think Canadian voters need to be consulted about it more than they have been, especially in those communities most affected. If we agree there is such a thing as too much immigration - and I hope we can - then it’s a matter of deciding what the numbers should be. 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Canada needs population growth. Canadians are not doing the work that needs to be done so they have to get immigrants.

 

This is one of those rare cases where i agree with you - we do need growth. Regardless of the job market negative population growth has pretty negative impacts.

But - we do not need anything like what we're bringing in, and the challenges with the labour market aren't being driven by a lack of immigration that needs to be driven to the levels we're seeing.

And if you think it does - then you HAVE to find a way to accelerate growth of the infrastructure to accommodate that - ESPECIALLY housing.

Quote

Canadians want to much but, they don't want to work or suffer for it. That is why immigrant families quickly become better off then many Canadians.

Again - not going to disagree much. Although it is interesting that the immigrant will tend to always be behind those who've been raised here ON AVERAGE -  but their CHILDREN will generally exceed  the average.

But we simply cannot afford to have population growth - from immigration or anything else - that is higher than our infrastructure capacity improvements.  It's bad enough when it's medicine or schools but homes are just a deal breaker.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

As a serial immigrant myself

Serial?!? - you've gone away and come back a few times?

Quote

 I certainly support legal immigration but I think Canadian voters need to be consulted about it more than they have been, especially in those communities most affected. If we agree there is such a thing as too much immigration - and I hope we can - then it’s a matter of deciding what the numbers should be. 

You're right. And it shouldn't be outrageously hard to work out an algorithm for 'Just right".  Whatever we can build in housing and infrastructure as a top cap (no more than that) then reduce it to meet the max supported by economic needs (jobs, special skills, etc).

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Serial?!? - you've gone away and come back a few times?

Yes, I did that. I also moved back and forth to other countries before coming to Canada. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

Yes, I did that. I also moved back and forth to other countries before coming to Canada. 

Thats amusing - 'Serial immigrant" - there's got to be a joke in there somewhere    Anyway - belated welcome to canada  

[SpankyMcFarland]

Canada’s problem with housing is more the rule than the exception in developed countries these days. Across Europe one can see the same problem - young people tend to want to stay in, or move to, a few large centres in the country. They are up against the natural nimbyism of existing, generally older, homeowners, dressed up in all sorts of environmental and cultural ‘concerns’. It’s not hard to see how immigration could make this situation even more challenging for politicians. 
 

A basic point is that existing Canadians should be in charge of how many immigrants are allowed in. Consultation with the people has to be real and ongoing or there could be ugly consequences. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Canada needs population growth.

Why? In what way is Canada a better place to live with 40m than it was at 30m or 20m?

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Canadians are not doing the work that needs to be done so they have to get immigrants.

This is nonsense, of course. If Canadians aren't doing low-skilled work it's because employers refuse to hike the wages and treat them better. As an economist pointed out on a recent Stats Canada report, if employers were really short of staff they'd be raising wages and bringing in automation to replace people. But we're not seeing that happening.

We have shortages in a few, key, skilled areas such as healthcare and the trades. But very few of our immigrants are in either category.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Canadians want to much but, they don't want to work or suffer for it. That is why immigrant families quickly become better off then many Canadians.

There's no evidence of this.

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

As a serial immigrant myself I certainly support legal immigration but I think Canadian voters need to be consulted about it more than they have been, especially in those communities most affected. If we agree there is such a thing as too much immigration - and I hope we can - then it’s a matter of deciding what the numbers should be. 

And what type. I think bringing in low-skilled workers is insane, frankly. These jobs are largely going to be eliminated by AI in the near future and then what will we have? Hundreds of thousands of sullen, unemployable people angry at Canada.

[I am Groot]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is one of those rare cases where i agree with you - we do need growth. Regardless of the job market negative population growth has pretty negative impacts.

There is a midpoint between growth and negative growth, you know. It's called a stable population.  Even if we agree that at least 'some' growth is good we certainly don't need record-breaking growth like we have now.

 

[I am Groot]

23 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Canada’s problem with housing is more the rule than the exception in developed countries these days. Across Europe one can see the same problem - young people tend to want to stay in, or move to, a few large centres in the country. They are up against the natural nimbyism of existing, generally older, homeowners, dressed up in all sorts of environmental and cultural ‘concerns’. It’s not hard to see how immigration could make this situation even more challenging for politicians. 
 

A basic point is that existing Canadians should be in charge of how many immigrants are allowed in. Consultation with the people has to be real and ongoing or there could be ugly consequences. 

Canadians were never asked their opinions about immigration, especially immigration from countries with vastly different cultures, traditions and values. Nor were they asked their opinions when immigration was hugely increased under Mulroney, who did it largely in hopes of garnering immigrant votes. Immigration hasn't been aimed at helping Canada since the 1960s, but at helping the politicians.

I would wager if you showed the Canada of today to Canadians in the 1970s they'd be horrified by the societal breakdown and the loss of their own traditions, institutions, values and culture.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Canada’s problem with housing is more the rule than the exception in developed countries these days. Across Europe one can see the same problem - young people tend to want to stay in, or move to, a few large centres in the country. They are up against the natural nimbyism of existing, generally older, homeowners, dressed up in all sorts of environmental and cultural ‘concerns’. It’s not hard to see how immigration could make this situation even more challenging for politicians. 
 

 

The problems in Canada go far deeper than that.  Which is why we're at the bottom of the heap in homes per capita and sinking.

No matter how you slice it - SOMEONE has to stop that before it continues. It is going to lead to significant social unrest.

[eyeball]

On 6/16/2023 at 11:54 AM, ExFlyer said:

We do not owe anyone housing.

Try telling that to the density-averse nimby's who are definitely worth whining about when it comes to the shortage of housing and the inflated cost of housing.

Quote

The Calgary affordable housing idea that divides conservatives, federal and local

Late Tuesday, council voted 8-7 to reject an entire set of a task force's proposals to ease the affordability crisis, because a few recommendations called for easing Calgary's restrictive residential zoning rules.

Nimby's expect way too much and catering to them is a lot costlier than people might think.

Quote

Could a “doom loop” be coming to a Canadian city near you?

If something doesn't change soon, all that will be left is millionaires and the very poor

Could a “doom loop” be coming to a Canadian city near you? Many signs point to yes. While it may sound like a gravity-defying amusement park ride, a doom loop is a much more terrifying reality where rather than eluding gravity, a city plunges into a bottomless sinkhole of decline.

 

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Try telling that to the density-averse nimby's who are definitely worth whining about when it comes to the shortage of housing and the inflated cost of housing.

Nimby's expect way too much and catering to them is a lot costlier than people might think.

 

To be honest - the nimbys are not our problem when it comes to housing. There might be a little here and there but it's not a primary factor. 

The biggest challenge is that the way our financial systems are set up and the way all levels of gov'ts approach the issue, everything makes it so that it is NOT in the developer's interest or capacity at all to build to the current needs.  It always lags by at least 3 years or so - so what we're fiinshing today is the housing we needed to have 2-3 years ago - and with increasing immigration that's making the problem much more severe. When you throw in things like interest rates driving developers away from the market for short periods which means even less housing - we're headed for even worse.

And make no mistake - what that means  is that even if we slow down immigration, the way things are the market will adapt and still build too few homes.

It's complex - it's no one thing or any one level of gov't but it's not like the fixes aren't fairly easy to see.

The biggest problem tho is that even if we fixed the problem tomorrow we would not only have to seriously increase production to meet demand - we would have to increase beyond that to catch up for lost ground. And even with a substantial increase above our needs it would be a decade or more before we caught back up, although at least things would get better as we went.

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

To be honest - the nimbys are not our problem when it comes to housing. There might be a little here and there but it's not a primary factor. 

To be honest, nimbyism is the biggest elephant in the room.  I've seen in action as an area planning commission member for nearly 35 years now.  

Quote

The biggest challenge is that the way our financial systems are set up and the way all levels of gov'ts approach the issue, everything makes it so that it is NOT in the developer's interest or capacity at all to build to the current needs.

Financial systems have nothing to do with it, increase density by allowing more subdivision of smaller lots and development of strata housing and financiers will be lining up with cash to make it happen.

It's the regulatory hurdles, many of which have built up over the years in response to nimbys, that are keeping things locked down.

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Canadians were never asked their opinions about immigration, especially immigration from countries with vastly different cultures, traditions and values. Nor were they asked their opinions when immigration was hugely increased under Mulroney, who did it largely in hopes of garnering immigrant votes. Immigration hasn't been aimed at helping Canada since the 1960s, but at helping the politicians.

I would wager if you showed the Canada of today to Canadians in the 1970s they'd be horrified by the societal breakdown and the loss of their own traditions, institutions, values and culture.

I used to wonder who would be so incredibly stupid as to encourage immigration from a culture such as India with a society based upon privilege and corruption.   Then I realized: it is a dead ringer for Ottawa.

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

There is a midpoint between growth and negative growth, you know. It's called a stable population.  Even if we agree that at least 'some' growth is good we certainly don't need record-breaking growth like we have now.

We do agree.  But whether it's one person growth or 1000 people or 1,000,000 as trudeau says he wants to work up to, it CANNOT be more than infrastructure growth and that's what trudeau is doing - flooding the country with population growth that we simply are not building enough infrastructure  to sustain and that's going to be most apparent with homes.

Personally i would suspect that the 'sweet spot' for immigration is closer to where it used to be at around 250 - 300 k people max.  I think the better thing to do for our economy would be focusing on productivity, that leads to higher wages and better gdp per capita instead of just higher gdp.  BUT whatever the number turns out to be we need the resources for the people.

Edited June 19, 2023 by CdnFox