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

[ExFlyer]

10 hours 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.

 

I understand nimbyism. We have it in our city too. Thing is, the city has the last say in development and normally approve the development.

In my neighbourhood there are 4 approved developments that have been stagnant for over 2 years. 2 of them have even taken down the signs advertising the development.

 Bottom line is that reality hits...to the developer. While they have approval, the cost of materials, labour, permits, red tape etc hits them in the head. If they proceed, the units, apartments, condos, housing et all become unaffordable or the cost is so high, rents are prohibitive. As well, being forced to build a certain percentage as low income units, it makes the developing of it unprofitable so, they don't.

So, in the end, it is not nimbys that win but that profitability stops development.

[I am Groot]

11 hours 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.

And just how densely populated is the area you live in? You're in a highrise apartment, are you?

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Our immigration system was purring along at about 85k per year until Mulroney decided to triple it for no good reason. I'd like to go back to that, and only take the cream of the crop. We don't need more people to work at Tim Hortons. 

[ExFlyer]

21 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Why?...

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.

There's no evidence of this.

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.

Why should employers or businesses pay higher wages for work that is low end and unskilled? They pay what the job is worth.

We do not have shortages... we have people that do not like the work. I know nurses that do not want to work nights or weekends so they quit. I know companies that cannot get people to work because it is manual labour (labourers getting paid $30+ per hour plus benefits) and have to work outside. We have killed the trades by closing trade schools that used to teach it. Very few high schools have "shop"courses anymore.

AI doing low-skilled workers manual labour or service work?? Wake up Dude LOL

[I am Groot]

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Why should employers or businesses pay higher wages for work that is low end and unskilled? They pay what the job is worth.

You don't personally decide what the work is worth. The market does that. That's how capitalism works. If you can't find workers, then the market says you have to pay more to attract them. This is the flip side of having to pay more for scarce items or products.

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

We do not have shortages... we have people that do not like the work. I know nurses that do not want to work nights or weekends so they quit.

So what? The market says if you can't find people who don't want to work those shifts or that type of work you raise your pay/benefits until you can. Or you replace them with automation. 

I agree that there are people who simply don't want to work, and who are content to live off various government funding schemes. This is a distortion of the market and should be strictly policed.

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

We have killed the trades by closing trade schools that used to teach it. Very few high schools have "shop"courses anymore.

Give schools a break. They're too busy teaching about gender fluidity and critical race and oppression and anti-racism.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

And just how densely populated is the area you live in? You're in a highrise apartment, are you?

No I'm in a very sparsely populated area - we just now finally after 25 years of arguing around the topic increased density to allow 2 residences on a 2 acre lot.

This finally brought us in line with the other regions around us and it also legalized a good number of rental suites that people had built up over the decades. Nimbyism was by far the biggest factor in the delay.

Edited June 19, 2023 by eyeball

[ExFlyer]

56 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You don't personally decide what the work is worth. The market does that. That's how capitalism works. If you can't find workers, then the market says you have to pay more to attract them. This is the flip side of having to pay more for scarce items or products.

So what? The market says if you can't find people who don't want to work those shifts or that type of work you raise your pay/benefits until you can. Or you replace them with automation. 

I agree that there are people who simply don't want to work, and who are content to live off various government funding schemes. This is a distortion of the market and should be strictly policed.

Give schools a break. They're too busy teaching about gender fluidity and critical race and oppression and anti-racism.

 

You no like? OK. That is my opinion.

Edited June 19, 2023 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Our immigration system was purring along at about 85k per year until Mulroney decided to triple it for no good reason. I'd like to go back to that, and only take the cream of the crop. We don't need more people to work at Tim Hortons. 

Well mulroney wanted to stimulate a stagnant economy  with growth - and a little of that can go a long way.  Trudeau has just taken that to an insane extreme.

I would argue that immigration under harper was probably pretty close to what we'd want.  In 2006 a number of changes were made to the system that radically improve the "quality" of immigrant if you will and whether or not they'd be a draw or a benefit to the system. And we brought in something like 200 - 250 k per year which is decent steady growth but not insane.  If we weren't behind already our current building would be able to cope with that.

Harper's immigration was also very popular among immigrants, who tend to be against 'easy' immigration. It worked, our economy grew decently but wasn't flooded, with modest changes to our system we could have kept up with home construction pretty easily, good times

But - the exact number is of course a subject for debate.

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

No I'm in a very sparsely populated area - we just now finally after 25 years of arguing around the topic increased density to allow 2 residences on a 2 acre lot.

This finally brought us in line with the other regions around us and it also legalized a good number of rental suites that people had built up over the decades. Nimbyism was by far the biggest factor in the delay.

Would you WANT to live in a highrise?

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well mulroney wanted to stimulate a stagnant economy  with growth - and a little of that can go a long way. 

No, he did not. He wanted to get more tory voters. He actually asked the Economic Council of Canada what tripling the immigration rate would do for the economy. Their answer was very little. It might help a bit, might hurt a bit, depending on the mix of immigrants. The question, they said, would have to be answered on non-economic grounds. From what I have read the question was decided by his immigration minister convincing cabinet that immigrants tend to vote for the party that was in power when they came in once they get to vote. I have no reason to believe Trudeau's increases aren't just as self-serving.

 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I would argue that immigration under harper was probably pretty close to what we'd want.  In 2006 a number of changes were made to the system that radically improve the "quality" of immigrant if you will and whether or not they'd be a draw or a benefit to the system. And we brought in something like 200 - 250 k per year which is decent steady growth but not insane.  If we weren't behind already our current building would be able to cope with that.

Even during Harper's time we had issues with integration, with growing ethnic ghettoes. How do the kids of immigrants learn to become Canadians when they go to school and 80% of the kids there are non-Canadian?

But in any event, a study would tell us how many would be best.

[Nationalist]

On 6/18/2023 at 10:12 AM, ExFlyer said:

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.

This may be true. But only because we've coddled our kids and taught them to not have kids. Made a sort of taboo of large families. Made divorce normal, abortion abundant and turned human reproduction into a business. We belittled the family. Reduced its base import. And now...we can't even produce enough people to work the fields and factories.

Good job us!

Edited June 20, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

No, he did not. He wanted to get more tory voters. He actually asked the Economic Council of Canada what tripling the immigration rate would do for the economy. Their answer was very little. It might help a bit, might hurt a bit, depending on the mix of immigrants. The question, they said, would have to be answered on non-economic grounds. From what I have read the question was decided by his immigration minister convincing cabinet that immigrants tend to vote for the party that was in power when they came in once they get to vote. I have no reason to believe Trudeau's increases aren't just as self-serving.

Immigrants can't vote Groot, at least not till they became citizens IF they ever did.  He would have been long gone before it could possibly have had any effect.  And while immigrants themselves in those days didn't' add much to the economy (that changed in 2006) their influx did, creating housing and other activity that made a significant difference.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Even during Harper's time we had issues with integration, with growing ethnic ghettoes.
 

We really didn't.  It was arguably one of the best times in history for successful integration, with the addition of the flag based systems and expansion of mentorships from 2006 on we were comfortably a world leader in successful immigration.

Quote

But in any event, a study would tell us how many would be best.

Well we're in agreement there, and i think we can agree that the priority questions would be what is the number of highly integration-friendly who are skill-targeted for our economic needs and have a high chance of success are appropriate to stimulate economic growth. Not "how many refugees can we cram into a plane"

Not surprisingly the number one overwhelming factor in success is strong language skills in english or french, Immigrants who have excellent engilsh or french integrate much better, are more financially successful and stable, and their kids do better.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Would you WANT to live in a highrise?

Of course I would if the street was the only option.

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

This may be true. But only because we've coddled our kids and taught them to not have kids. Made a sort of taboo of large families. Made divorce normal, abortion abundant and turned human reproduction into a business. We belittled the family. Reduced its base import. And now...we can't even produce enough people to work the fields and factories.

Good job us!

We told them not to have kids???

Or maybe they are having too much fun to have kids? Or their lifestyle is impacted by having kids? Or we have told them they can be anything they want to be and can do whatever and whenever they want and they are the best whatever they do has no consequences.

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

We told them not to have kids???

Or maybe they are having too much fun to have kids? Or their lifestyle is impacted by having kids? Or we have told them they can be anything they want to be and can do whatever and whenever they want and they are the best whatever they do has no consequences.

In the first half of the 20th century and indeed throughout history up till the 60s, there was an emphasis on getting married, having kids and starting a family. That was a purpose and a source of fulfillment. As the 60s progressed, that message fell from favor and was replaced by a notion of "freedom". Free to burn your bra...free to have sex at the drop of a dime...free to divorce...free to have kids out of wedlock...free to not work...

And now we see the consequences. What people forgot, was that with "freedom" comes "responsibility".

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

... do whatever and whenever they want and they are the best whatever they do has no consequences.

This is the natural result of nihilistic consumerism, you have hit it on the head.  

But a culture that is built to provide nothing but pleasure and comfort is having a hard time resolving the idea that the only clear meaningful purpose in life is to sacrifice all of that to become a parent.

Strange... it's almost like looking to Bud Light, Twitter and Nike to solve social problems doesn't work well...

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Of course I would if the street was the only option.

The people living in the street aren't there because they can't afford rent. They're there because they're addicts and crazy.

[I am Groot]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Immigrants can't vote Groot, at least not till they became citizens IF they ever did.  He would have been long gone before it could possibly have had any effect. 

Immigrants get to vote when they become citizens and it only takes 3 years for that to happen. Mulroney did indeed benefit from those votes.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And while immigrants themselves in those days didn't' add much to the economy (that changed in 2006) their influx did, creating housing and other activity that made a significant difference.

Hey, I'm just going by what the economists and their studies say.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We really didn't. 

We really did.

This report is from 2017 but based on data from previous years (obviously) and it said that Canada's ability to assimilate immigrants was reaching the breaking point. That didn't happen after just one year of Trudeau. 

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

 

 

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The people living in the street aren't there because they can't afford rent. They're there because they're addicts and crazy.

No, there are more ordinary people being forced into a homeless situation all the time.  Interesting how you portray all addicts as being criminals and all homeless people as being addicts.  You don't seem to be very well informed about this.  

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The people living in the street aren't there because they can't afford rent. They're there because they're addicts and crazy.

So,we will give them free shelter, free food, free income, safe injection sites, and now, free drugs too.

That is all a step forward???

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

So,we will give them free shelter, free food, free income, safe injection sites, and now, free drugs too.

That is all a step forward???

Maybe better than stepping over them on the way to an important meeting, as they draw their last breath.

But not better than figuring out why a society that has more to offer than any in history is crushing people...

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

We told them not to have kids???

Or maybe they are having too much fun to have kids? Or their lifestyle is impacted by having kids? Or we have told them they can be anything they want to be and can do whatever and whenever they want and they are the best whatever they do has no consequences.

Nope. The option is largely off the table. Funny story about that....

Back even till the end of the 60's women's incomes were not allowed to be used to calculate bank mortgages and lines of credit for buying a home etc.   It was assumed that even if they were working now, they would soon get married and have babies and their income would end.

Women of course felt this was unfair - it was corrected after much lobbying and quickly women's incomes were treated just like men's.

The unintended effect was that couples could now buy nicer homes. And not surprisingly housing prices went up. and up and up. Cost of living and inflation went up. And up. 

Over time we've arrived at a point where now it REQUIRES two incomes just to get by for most people.  Families struggle to be able to afford the time off necessary for ONE child. Two is a luxury.  Most people can't afford to have the wife stay home and not work to be pregnant and raise kids.

So no. It's that the option is now off the table. People really can't choose to have 3 or 4 kids - many really can't afford even 1.

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, there are more ordinary people being forced into a homeless situation all the time.  Interesting how you portray all addicts as being criminals and all homeless people as being addicts.  You don't seem to be very well informed about this.  

All I can go off of is what the police say. And I don't think I used the term 'all', but the vast majority, certainly. Of course, they probably aren't as well-informed as you out there in the ass end of eastern Canada.

Edited June 20, 2023 by I am Groot

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

All I can go off of is what the police say. And I don't think I used the term 'all', but the vast majority, certainly. Of course, they probably aren't as well-informed as you out there in the ass end of eastern Canada.

Actually I'm out at the other end. The cost of housing is through the roof and availability is in the basement hereabouts. Homelessness is more mobile and seasonal here with old boats and vehicles and bush camps being the most visible signs. A sizable amount of the homelessness is seasonal due to the nature of employment opportunities. The lack of housing affects employers as well - it's got to be tough for everyone if workers spend every night in the bush and are expected to be as fresh as a daisy and presentable to customers every morning.

The proliferation of old boats being turned into live-aboards reminds me of  floathomes made of old shipping containers showing up in Laurentian lakes. I imagine the nimby's thereabouts are tearing their hair out over it.

Edited June 20, 2023 by eyeball

[RedDog]

Totally unnecessary as POTawa floods in the wrong people destroying a nation.