The !diot's prerogative: an existential challenge of modern representative democracies?

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, myata said:

Nope. No way. There's voting and voting. Not all voting is the same, even if the word is. "Voting" as in baby choice, milk or porridge? No thanks. I want ice cream. Have no interest in a pointless ritual that at this age has very little to do with genuine representation of people's interests and priorities.

Fair enough, but I think you're agreeing with me - or at least not disagreeing - that there are significant segments that don't carry enough influence.

[WestCanMan]

• The !diot's prerogative:

Kudos! You found the perfect name for your blog. 

I missed your lament about how sad it's gonna be when WW3 is averted and people can afford food again, but take heart, the end of the Biden era wasn't the end of fascism. Just look how many dummies are still sad to see him go.

It will make another comeback 80 years from now.  

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You just did - they costs more.  Bringing an Indian versus a Belarusian ... why pay more for the latter ?  Indian folks fit in just fine.

I said they earn more money - and will thus pay more taxes.

About 45% of Canadian income earners pay no taxes under our progressive tax system. So anyone we bring in who doesn't earn a reasonably high salary is a burden on the taxpayers.

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I felt that your statement was true but wanted to challenge myself as see how much it might be so.  I like to use PEW for my sources on this:  

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/19/europeans-credit-eu-with-promoting-peace-and-prosperity-but-say-brussels-is-out-of-touch-with-its-citizens/

 

I'm confused with how your cite relates to the quoted text you used from my previous post where I said the purpose of immigration should be to make life better for Canadians, not foreigners. I didn't speak to Canadians' attitudes about immigration, though I do have some stats on that if you wish.

As to helping the economy - immigration has been described as an unparalleled benefit to the economy for at least a generation, talked up originally by Mulroney, I believe, when he decided to almost triple immigration despite the economists telling him it would do no such thing. But one thing they did state was that the increase could help the economy a little, or hurt it, depending on the mix of immigrants. That would seem an indisputable statement.

So we should get the best mix we can. Take the best, and leave the rest.

Only a small minority of immigrants are ever tested even under our poorly tested 'points' system, and that needs to change. We have something many, many people want so we should be able to apply the standards that most benefit us as a country. The numbers? That would depend on how many we can accommodate and how many and what kind we need - what is best for us in other words.

 

 

[I am Groot]

For some reason this topic and others on governance reminds me of Polybius' anacyclocis cycle. Because if it does we seem to be in the waning days of the age of democracy with the rise of demagogues and heading towards the days of collapse, then anarchy and then the rise of 'strong leaders'. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I said they earn more money - and will thus pay more taxes.

About 45% of Canadian income earners pay no taxes under our progressive tax system. So anyone we bring in who doesn't earn a reasonably high salary is a burden on the taxpayers.

Okay, but if you're bringing in a doctor it's a net payment from the taxpayer.  

But I'm going to go against my own argument here, any immigrant comes for the salary of the available job so I guess it doesn't matter where they come from.

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 

I'm confused with how your cite relates to the quoted text you used from my previous post where I said the purpose of immigration should be to make life better for Canadians, not foreigners. I didn't speak to Canadians' attitudes about immigration, though I do have some stats on that if you wish.

As to helping the economy - immigration has been described as an unparalleled benefit to the economy for at least a generation, talked up originally by Mulroney, I believe, when he decided to almost triple immigration despite the economists telling him it would do no such thing. But one thing they did state was that the increase could help the economy a little, or hurt it, depending on the mix of immigrants. That would seem an indisputable statement.

So we should get the best mix we can. Take the best, and leave the rest.

Only a small minority of immigrants are ever tested even under our poorly tested 'points' system, and that needs to change. We have something many, many people want so we should be able to apply the standards that most benefit us as a country. The numbers? That would depend on how many we can accommodate and how many and what kind we need - what is best for us in other words.

 

 

Yes everything you wrote make sense. I was writing about a part of your post where you said people were against immigration and refugees. It didn't seem so around 2018 and 2019 when Pew polled the EU

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

For some reason this topic and others on governance reminds me of Polybius' anacyclocis cycle. Because if it does we seem to be in the waning days of the age of democracy with the rise of demagogues and heading towards the days of collapse, then anarchy and then the rise of 'strong leaders'. 

Again, this might be true. Question for those of us who do not follow the populist is how to fix.

 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

For some reason this topic and others on governance reminds me of Polybius' anacyclocis cycle. Because if it does we seem to be in the waning days of the age of democracy with the rise of demagogues and heading towards the days of collapse, then anarchy and then the rise of 'strong leaders'. 

This seems like an academic's way describing the process of taking one step back for every two forward.  I think it works the other way too though, two back for one forward - this is one of those times and sadly we're just now taking the 1st step back.  The 2nd step backwards will be after the 'strong leaders' wear thin.  We'll be lucky if we only suffer a couple of centuries long interregnum after that before we start stepping forward again.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes everything you wrote make sense. I was writing about a part of your post where you said people were against immigration and refugees. It didn't seem so around 2018 and 2019 when Pew polled the EU

The mainstream media (and I used to think people who used that term pejoratively were conspiracy theorists) have been united in supporting mass immigration for decades. There were almost no stories criticizing any aspect of immigration prior to the last year or so. That includes the supposedly 'far right' Postmedia papers. So it's very easy to believe, with the constant cheerleading from the media, that Canadians have always been fully supportive of immigration. They haven't been. Every now and then a poll comes out that gets limited coverage, and if you're a news junkie you might just spot it.

But even this year the criticism is couched in talk about housing and healthcare, and usually talks about foreign students and foreign workers, and to some degree, asylum seekers. Not a single mainstream media organization or even columnist in English Canada that I'm aware of has called for immigration to be reduced, let alone heavily reduced. Nor has any politician in English Canada.

In 2018, a government survey found 65% felt immigrants wanted too much special accommodation. An Angus Reid poll in 2016 said 68% of Canadians thought immigrants should be doing more to fit in instead of keeping their old customs and languages. Another by AR in 2018 showed 49% felt immigration was too high. Another by Ipsos had 54% of those who answered saying Canada was too welcoming to immigrants, 58% felt immigration was putting too much strain on public services, 48% agreed or strongly agreed that immigration was changing Canada in ways they didn't like (vs 26% who disagree). An environics survey in 2019 had 65% of Canadians saying immigrants were not doing enough to adopt Canadian values.

The message I keep reading in the media is there was a 'consensus' about how much we all approved of immigration. But what they meant was a consensus among 'the people who count', ie, the close little circle of people in academia, media and government from urban Canada.

 

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Again, this might be true. Question for those of us who do not follow the populist is how to fix.

The problem is, only those in charge can change the system, and they don't want to. They're quite happy that this system keeps almost all smart, capable, accomplished people out of politics.

[Venandi]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

So it's very easy to believe, with the constant cheerleading from the media, that Canadians have always been fully supportive of immigration. They haven't been

Yes the media were culpable here in the past and on a variety of issues they remain so in the present.

But, and it's a big butt, pointing out potential and specific issues at the time of their occurrence only got you insults and ridicule from the very people (voters if you will) you now seem to be branding as innocent in this debacle. Not trying to put words in your mouth here BTW... I'm just a bit sensitive about all this I guess.

There are lots of examples, one of my favourites was the deception about TFWs in aviation (just to name one). Employers (both fixed and rotary wing) would routinely issue bogus job ads seeking pilots with specific equipment endorsements that they didn't wish to provide training for. Highly qualified veteran pilots lacking only an endorsement and PPC were then deemed to be unqualified and inexperienced. 

Then.... that bogus determination based on the bogus ad was in turn used to obtain an LMO which allowed TFW pilots to parachute into the industry leaving Canadiens out of work... it was particularly common in seasonal employment venues. 

The RCAF used that exact tactic in reverse with equal success. They asserted that highly experienced veteran RAF pilots (released during cut backs) needing only an endorsement and PPC would prove incredibly valuable to the organization. And it worked... and they actually were.

All of this got to the point that I would submit the employment ad, a copy of my (fairly lengthy) resume and a covering letter to the minister of labour every time I submitted an application. I'd do it again immediately after he authorized the LMO request. 

Guess how many responses I got? Then guess how much ridicule it generated from the very people who now want to deport every immigrant and TFW they lay their beady little eyes on.

Sorry... If I sound a little disgusted with these folks it's because I am.

Now that it affects THEIR rent, THEIR employment, and THEIR standard of living it's suddenly the medias fault, they were duped... and as if that weren't enough, now it's my lack of sympathy for their plight centred in a ridicule reticle that they themselves created.... and previously defended.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Venandi

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Yes the media were culpable here in the past and on a variety of issues they remain so in the present.

But, and it's a big butt, pointing out potential and specific issues at the time of their occurrence only got you insults and ridicule from the very people (voters if you will) you now seem to be branding as innocent in this debacle.

I didn't brand them innocent but ignorant. And it was rarely ordinary people who engaged in insults and ridicule. It was the media, the politicians, the academics, all part of that incestuous circle of Laurentian Elites. Or, of late, the adherents to the cult of antiracism indoctrinated by the postmodernists and cultural relativists at universities.

Employers will always seek cheap, obedient employees. It's the government's job to ensure they don't cheat while doing so, that the government doesn't cooperate in helping them cheat Canadians.

An excellent example of the difference was when Kellie Leitch proposed a 'values test' for potential immigrants during the 2017 Conservative leadership contest. Every politician and media personality condemned the idea, including every other Tory candidate. Some were scandalized, outraged at the very idea. Yet polls at the time showed the great majority of Canadians, including 80% of Conservative party voters supported the idea. How do the leaders of a party where 80% support a proposal reject it out of hand with contempt? 

It is the difference between our leaders and us. They have a different culture, different values. We saw the same thing back at the tail end of Harper's reign when they proposed banning women who wouldn't show their faces from being sworn in as Canadian citizens. The media were outraged, furious, heaping condemnation upon condemnation on the very idea. But the great majority of Canadians supported the idea. Same thing with Quebec's proposal to ban burquas and hijabs. The great majority of Canadians supported it and wished their own province would put in such a law.

Not the media, though. 

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

There are lots of examples, one of my favourites was the deception about TFWs in aviation (just to name one). Employers (both fixed and rotary wing) would routinely issue bogus job ads seeking pilots with specific equipment endorsements that they didn't wish to provide training for.

The TFW system has been abused for decades. Though never more so than now. And of course, the larger IMP is even more abused because unlike the TFW employers don't even need to do a fake job ad or submit any evidence to the government that it couldn't find people for those jobs.

The government encourages this because it helps keep wages down and thus makes the Liberals look better. That it harms Canadian workers is irrelevant.

 

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. There were almost no stories criticizing any aspect of immigration prior to the last year or so. That includes the supposedly 'far right' Postmedia papers. So it's very easy to believe, with the constant cheerleading from the media, that Canadians have always been fully supportive of immigration. They haven't been.

2. Every now and then a poll comes out that gets limited coverage, and if you're a news junkie you might just spot it.

3. But even this year the criticism is couched in talk about housing and healthcare, and usually talks about foreign students and foreign workers, and to some degree, asylum seekers. Not a single mainstream media organization or even columnist in English Canada that I'm aware of has called for immigration to be reduced, let alone heavily reduced. Nor has any politician in English Canada.

4. In 2018, a government survey found 65% felt immigrants wanted too much special accommodation. An Angus Reid poll in 2016 said 68% of Canadians thought immigrants should be doing more to fit in instead of keeping their old customs and languages. Another by AR in 2018 showed 49% felt immigration was too high. Another by Ipsos had 54% of those who answered saying Canada was too welcoming to immigrants, 58% felt immigration was putting too much strain on public services, 48% agreed or strongly agreed that immigration was changing Canada in ways they didn't like (vs 26% who disagree). An environics survey in 2019 had 65% of Canadians saying immigrants were not doing enough to adopt Canadian values.

5. The message I keep reading in the media is there was a 'consensus' about how much we all approved of immigration. But what they meant was a consensus among 'the people who count', ie, the close little circle of people in academia, media and government from urban Canada.

 

1. "Full support" of immigration isn't required.  They don't even need majority support, but they can't continue with opposition.  The "last year or so" comment is accurate.  Increased immigration has been a factor in the cost of housing and that, I believe, is what has caused the pushback.

2. There are aspects of immigration that are more popular than other.  If you're looking at polling and finding one "now and then" that supports your POV, it's likely that your POV isn't as supported as all that.

3. You said in point 1 that "stories" don't "criticize" immigration.  Stories won't do that, editorials will.  So you would have to find an expert, or at least a thought leader who supports immigration reduction, light or heavy.  There doesn't seem to be anyone to play that role AFAIK.  Even Poilievre doesn't play that card, but couches his language with adjectives about the types of immigrants we want.

4. Ok but none of those translate into reducing immigration exactly.  What people want is a better, and therefore bigger economy.  More population increases demand, and therefore increases economic activity ie. GDP.  The fact that a bigger and more productive economy does not trickle down to the average person in ways they expect is something we should look at.  I don't expect that working people will be better off with a population that stays the same or declines but it's an economic question not a matter for passionate debate.  It's numbers.

5. You left out business.  Business is the #1 driver of these things IMO, they can even override "the" public.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

And it was rarely ordinary people who engaged in insults and ridicule

Based on my experience that's 100% wrong. Many posts on forums just like this bear that out IMO. I'm not suggesting that's representative of the population at large, but it is illuminating none-the-less. I was a member of one such forum for 20 plus years and watched the transition of hard core individual members on several different topics.

You need only review some of the covid threads to see this... be assured the most obnoxious of posters will be singing the same tune you are if all that goes sideways. 

People have short memories. 70% of Canadians favoured the carbon tax during the last election, now they mostly don't. Damn hard to govern people like that IMO.

 

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It was the media, the politicians, the academics, all part of that incestuous circle of Laurentian Elites.

A popular sentiment with people who have suddenly discovered that they were dead wrong...  the media made me act like that, or it's some politicians fault. You see that now with things like the police defunding that people actually voted for. There may come a time when covid mandates fall into the same category. Provincial governments elected on the promise not to implement them caved under the pressure from citizens to do so after they became frightened.

JT himself is on record saying he wouldn't implement mandates and the NS conservatives caved weeks after getting elected.  All due to public pressure exerted by scared people.

Letters to the editor were the very definition of caustic, ill informed vitriol.

Have you noticed that those who supported eugenics and residential schools are strangely quiet now too.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It's the government's job to ensure they don't cheat while doing so, that the government doesn't cooperate in helping them cheat Canadians.

Well, I'm looking forward to that. At the age I started looking, I was interested in seasonal charter flying to sunshine destinations instead of an airline gig... I ended up driving dump trucks instead.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

An excellent example of the difference was when Kellie Leitch proposed a 'values test' for potential immigrants during the 2017 Conservative leadership contest. Every politician and media personality condemned the idea, including every other Tory candidate. Some were scandalized, outraged at the very idea. Yet polls at the time showed the great majority of Canadians, including 80% of Conservative party voters supported the idea. How do the leaders of a party where 80% support a proposal reject it out of hand with contempt? 

I remember that, the values test... who would ever lie on something like that eh? I'd reject it out of hand too because the pass rate would be close to 100%. And if it weren't, companies providing test prep courses would explode. There would be sample tests on the ride to the examination site and translators on hand to coach. 

And I think you know that...

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It is the difference between our leaders and us.

Like it or not, our leaders are us and we elected them to represent.... us.

In fairness, JT has been nothing but predictable IMO. When I hear people who voted for him complaining about things like the carbon tax, I usually ask "what did you think was going to happen."

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The government encourages this because it helps keep wages down and thus makes the Liberals look better

Maybe, but it was aviation companies deliberately producing the bogus ads, deliberately rejecting highly qualified applicants for lack of a PPC, and deliberately misrepresenting the lack of qualified applicants (nationally)  to government who then acted on it. I lived that for years, and from my window, companies drove it and a gullible government nodded its head and complied without much understanding of how the industry even worked. 

That was what the letter writing campaign (wasn't just me BTW) was intended to illustrate. 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Venandi

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Full support" of immigration isn't required.  They don't even need majority support, but they can't continue with opposition.  The "last year or so" comment is accurate.  Increased immigration has been a factor in the cost of housing and that, I believe, is what has caused the pushback.

It's always had an impact. It's just that it's become impossible for even the media to ignore. I'm fairly sure the large number of newcomers since the Mulroney government has had an impact on our wage stagnation and even the behaviour of employers. Ie, why train university grads up when you can just hire one of the flood of newcomers who's got lots of experience and will work cheaper?

There's always been opposition, too. But that opposition had nowhere to go since all parties fully supported heavy immigration and none were willing to even suggest lowering it. Then, too, just because someone wants immigration lower doesn't mean that alone is going to guide their vote. People have lots of priorities in elections.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. There are aspects of immigration that are more popular than other.  If you're looking at polling and finding one "now and then" that supports your POV, it's likely that your POV isn't as supported as all that.

I've never seen a poll that didn't have substantial opposition to heavy immigration. Usually close to half the population opposed it, often going over.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You said in point 1 that "stories" don't "criticize" immigration.  Stories won't do that, editorials will.  So you would have to find an expert, or at least a thought leader who supports immigration reduction, light or heavy.  There doesn't seem to be anyone to play that role AFAIK.  Even Poilievre doesn't play that card, but couches his language with adjectives about the types of immigrants we want.

Never seen an editorial criticizing immigration itself (as opposed to refugees, foreign workers and students). It's like it's a third rail. Even Postmedia only criticizes the latter, never the former.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Ok but none of those translate into reducing immigration exactly.

They all show a growing sense of discomfort with the levels of very foreign people filling the cities and not doing much to integrate. And some of them DO explicitly say immigration is too high, like the Angus Reid poll in 2018.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What people want is a better, and therefore bigger economy.  More population increases demand, and therefore increases economic activity ie. GDP. 

No, man. It's not that easy. A bigger economy doesn't make it better. Bringing in lots of people gives us a higher GDP but if they're the wrong kind (low skilled) it lowers GDP per person and decreases government revenue (which requires them to tax higher income, ie, middle-income people more). That doesn't make the economy better at all. It makes it harder for young, inexperienced people here to find work and it pushes higher income people to go elsewhere. Lot of software people are working in the US because they pay better. They're replaced here by imports from India who will work cheap.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The fact that a bigger and more productive economy does not trickle down to the average person in ways they expect is something we should look at. 

But we don't have a more productive economy but a less productive economy. We have more people doing work cheaply which discourages employers from investing in new, modern equipment which would require fewer employees. We have a major productivity problem in this country because of a lack of proper creative destruction. Too much government interference keeping bad companies alive and flooding us with cheap labour so no one has to innovate.

 

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. You left out business.  Business is the #1 driver of these things IMO, they can even override "the" public.

If I didn't say it here I said it the other day on another topic. Sure, employers will always seek to get the cheapest, meekest, most easily cowed employees. There's no reason the government should help them in this other than corruption. It's not good for the country or society. It might be good for certain members of that government when they retire or are booted out, though. I'd be interested to know where these people wind up working and for how much money and how that might relate to some of the policies they pushed while in office.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

Based on my experience that's 100% wrong. Many posts on forums just like this bear that out IMO. I'm not suggesting that's representative of the population at large, but it is illuminating none-the-less.

Well aware of that. Then again, it was easy to get banned if you weren't like that. Including here.

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

You need only review some of the covid threads to see this... be assured the most obnoxious of posters will be singing the same tune you are if all that goes sideways. 

I still think covid shots were the proper thing to do. And if the bug hadn't mutated that would have pretty much ended things there and then.

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

People have short memories. 70% of Canadians favoured the carbon tax during the last election, now they mostly don't. Damn hard to govern people like that IMO.

Because there is an absolute torrent of pro-carbon tax stories out there, a ton of stuff telling us how the world is going to end next month without it. ZERO stories about what the actual impact on global warming will be if we even meet our goals (which we won't). ZERO stories on how much this has all cost us and our economy. 

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

A popular sentiment with people who have suddenly discovered that they were dead wrong...  the media made me act like that, or it's some politicians fault.

Where do you expect busy people to get their information from anyway if not the media? And when the media covers their own scientists or other 'experts' ordinary people are mostly going to believe them.

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

You see that now with things like the police defunding that people actually voted for.

I don't believe anyone in this country voted for it other than certain ethnic communities notorious for producing a lot of criminals.

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

I remember that, the values test... who would ever lie on something like that eh? I'd reject it out of hand too because the pass rate would be close to 100%. And if it weren't, companies providing test prep courses would explode. There would be sample tests on the ride to the examination site and translators on hand to coach. 

Have you ever had a job without an interview? What do you think a job interview is but an examination of your values? They already have your job history. They want to find out what kind of a person you are and how well you'll fit in. And there are all sorts of coaches and guides and example questions for job interviews, but you can't get hired in a fast-food restaurant without them.

And if you think these tests are easy to fool you've never taken one. They don't just ask bald questions. They ask a series of questions that move around that bald question but still tell them what they want to know about you. Can they be fooled? Sure. So can job interviews. We still do them. Except not for immigrants. We conduct no interviews. We don't try to find out what kind of a person they are. 

People have missed out on citizenship and been deported in other countries for refusing to shake hands with an interviewer of the opposite sex. That's well-known, I would think. But people keep doing it.

But we don't do interviews for citizenship either, of course. You get a 20 true/false and multiple-choice questions. No writing needed either. And you can do it over the internet.

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

Like it or not, our leaders are us and we elected them to represent.... us.

You sound old, like me, so you should know better. There was a time when our leaders were people, when they made jokes, when they showed their personality. Now it's all spin doctored into mush lest anyone cause offense. 

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

In fairness, JT has been nothing but predictable IMO. When I hear people who voted for him complaining about things like the carbon tax, I usually ask "what did you think was going to happen."

I don't think even those who voted for him knew just how many foreigners he would bring in, with how little scrutiny and preparation, or what the results of that would be.

I knew in 2015 that he would never balance a budget and said so then. He never has and never will. The rest, I expected pretty much normal Liberal mush. I wasn't aware of the degree of DEI crap he would instill in every single area of government. Or how absolutely universally incompetent he and his cabinet and government would be.

 

[Venandi]

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I still think covid shots were the proper thing to do.

Cool, and (to date) I would defend your right to get all 7 of them... did you?  

But please, let's not clap when  our neighbours get fired, can you give me that at least?

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

ZERO stories about what the actual impact on global warming will be if we even meet our goals

Actually there are lots of them that point out how insignificant our efforts would be even if we had the stones to achieve our lauded goals. We could shiver in the dark and achieve nothing in terms of global reductions.

I can easily pass the winter under a tarp with a bow and a handful of salt... it's not for everyone though, and the effort we would have to make to hit our goals (in a big sparsely settled frigid country) isn't far off that level of effort. Like college aged jocks at closing time when the handcuffs come out... I don't think most people actually want what they seem to be asking for.

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Where do you expect busy people to get their information from anyway if not the media? And when the media covers their own scientists or other 'experts' ordinary people are mostly going to believe them.

And they will believe the media outlets that most align with their thinking. They won't investigate or research contrary opinions, in fact they will ridicule them out of hand. Even if you do Herbs homework for him he won't read the link... instead he'll post something like TLDR as if it's a profound intellectual assessment of the study he didn't bother to read.

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You sound old, like me, so you should know better. There was a time when our leaders were people, when they made jokes, when they showed their personality. Now it's all spin doctored into mush lest anyone cause offense. 

Maybe I am.

But spin is deliberate, it's a science, a technique, there are courses in it and those who have taken those courses recognize it when they see it and can tell you what the next release is going to be. Problem is, those who aren't paying attention label those folks as Trumpers... right Herb?

It really is a fascinating thing to watch.

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I don't think even those who voted for him knew just how many foreigners he would bring in, with how little scrutiny and preparation, or what the results of that would be.

Because they weren't paying attention, they didn't ask questions, they didn't dig out that old handheld calculator and do a little math, they never thought about the infrastructure requirements... they were too damn busy labeling anyone who did a racist and high 5ing each other's vitriol. I keep saying it, but look no further than right here. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

1. It's always had an impact. It's just that it's become impossible for even the media to ignore.

2. I'm fairly sure the large number of newcomers since the Mulroney government has had an impact on our wage stagnation and even the behaviour of employers. Ie, why train university grads up when you can just hire one of the flood of newcomers who's got lots of experience and will work cheaper?

3. I've never seen a poll that didn't have substantial opposition to heavy immigration. Usually close to half the population opposed it, often going over.

4. Never seen an editorial criticizing immigration itself (as opposed to refugees, foreign workers and students). It's like it's a third rail. Even Postmedia only criticizes the latter, never the former.

5. No, man. It's not that easy. A bigger economy doesn't make it better. 

6. Bringing in lots of people gives us a higher GDP but if they're the wrong kind (low skilled) it lowers GDP per person and decreases government revenue (which requires them to tax higher income, ie, middle-income people more). 

7. Lot of software people are working in the US because they pay better. They're replaced here by imports from India who will work cheap.

---

But we don't have a more productive economy but a less productive economy. We have more people doing work cheaply which discourages employers from investing in new, modern equipment which would require fewer employees. We have a major productivity problem in this country because of a lack of proper creative destruction. Too much government interference keeping bad companies alive and flooding us with cheap labour so no one has to innovate.

If I didn't say it here I said it the other day on another topic. Sure, employers will always seek to get the cheapest, meekest, most easily cowed employees. There's no reason the government should help them in this other than corruption. It's not good for the country or society. It might be good for certain members of that government when they retire or are booted out, though. I'd be interested to know where these people wind up working and for how much money and how that might relate to some of the policies they pushed while in office.

Well here we are discussing economics.  I don't like talking about this in depth, because even the best economists are very cautious in their claims.  I would rather frame this as the two of us having part of the story, each, and trying to put it together.  But let's see...

1. If you're implying that the media doesn't want to cover economic questions honestly, I would say that's pretty ridiculous.  They don't even cover it competently a lot of the time.

2. Wages are also a double-edged sword.  We want workers who are well paid but we also don't want labour costs too high as that impacts productivity too.   The trade-offs are pretty tricky, as in the case of Chinese EVs.  Millions of Canadians would have benefited from Chinese EVs but we are going to tarriff them to protect manufacturing jobs mostly in Ontario.  Good or bad ?  Answer, probably: it depends.

3. "substantial" to "heavy immigration"... well, if you ask about "heavy" anything in a poll, people will react negatively.  Most people have no idea what the sweet spot is for immigration and economists don't either.  

Anyway, here are some numbers from the NP and Angus Reid.  Seems to me as the economy waxes and wanes, people change their minds.

4. I'm pretty sure it's happened, but not over cultural matters.  We don't have race riots, or big fights over religion in this country.   I don't know how you can see that cultural fit is or isn't a problem.  The last time this flared up was after 9/11 and sometimes when we bring in Muslim refugees.  Living in a large city, it seems that It's really not an issue.  The current discussion also seems to be economic.  

5. I agree that a bigger economy isn't better but a smaller one is pretty clearly something that economic planners everywhere try to avoid.

6. I would have to see the argument that it reduces GDP per person but ok.

7. Trump also reduced Tech Visas because he wants Americans to train up to be more techy, yes.  So Canada can import more tech people and service the US market.   The plus isn't just the wages the Indian import earns here, it's the revenue to the Canadian companies who are selling the services to the US.  Of course the worker is not making as much as he would in the US as you say. 

Incidentally, if I haven't pointed it out before I had my wage 'globalized' in the 1990s and that didn't feel good.

 

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It was the media, the politicians, the academics, all part of that incestuous circle of Laurentian Elites. Or, of late, the adherents to the cult of antiracism indoctrinated by the postmodernists and cultural relativists at universities.

The left IOW.

Edited December 16, 2024 by eyeball
Brevity.

[myata]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Anyway, here are some numbers from the NP and Angus Reid.  Seems to me as the economy waxes and wanes, people change their minds.

Thanks Michael, you illustrated the point beautifully. That was four decades of statistics, plus. Point to any one point where the majority was favoring the increase. No?

Why was it increasing then, in any period in all four decades? There's something that you see once elected into that chair and it can be completely different from what you were thinking as a regular citizen. Is it a good thing? Maybe, if citizens still have a direct line to you. But if not? If you're whisked into that tower and tell them that all is going great. What happens next?