Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prominent Liberals want to triple Canada`s population

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by nobleea View Post
    Many people confuse Refugees with Immigrants.
    Indeed.

    Most non-refugee immigrants have had ambitions to come here and be part of our society. That is perfectly welcome and nice to see.

    However, a lot of refugees are opportunists and not necessarily thankful to be here. Many wish they didn't have to leave their home country, and some don't respect our country very much if they think we played a role in destroying their home nation.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by KC View Post
      Also, you're are suggesting that the ones we will bring in will do the work domestic workers won't touch. So, are these better educated immigrants going to continue to do that work or quickly seek to attain better jobs (often by displacing slothful domestic worker), all in the name of upper mobility.
      I didn't say domestic work was slothful, or unskilled (if you wanna see slothful, see a lot of students at a university), I said a lot of Canadians are unwilling to do it. It always amazes me when we have high unemployment, yet I see job wanted signs at fast food restaurants, and people struggle to get labor to work in nursing homes and similar. We are very much first world spoiled. Most immigrants who IMO have a harder work ethic / greater desire to do whatever it takes to improve their lives and those of their families, are a good thing for our society, constant immigration is a big part of why, North America has been more successful economically than Europe.
      Last edited by moahunter; 25-10-2016, 09:35 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        ^ That's very true. A lot of Canadian-born people see certain tasks/jobs as "beneath" them and refuse to do them, yet new Canadians take them on with pride.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by moahunter View Post
          ^aside from immigration lawyers, I think we all do, because skilled immigrants tend to be better educated, and younger, than the general population. Slow immigration, like Japan has done, results in a demographic nightmare, because like it or not, we aren't producing enough children to replace the workers needed as the boomers retire. Good luck getting a millennial who has been driven around from one activity to the next their entire childhood, encouraged to do a toilet paper university arts degree (which they probably dropped out from, as difficult as that is given how easy such degrees are), having constantly been told how amazing they are, to change the diapers on a boomer in a nursing home, it just won't happen. Like it or not, we need immigrants to do the work that a lot of our population consider themselves "too good for", in addition to do the work a lot of our population just aren't good enough for.
          Whoa, what a cynical geezer you sound. This post sounds like you are bitter for some reason. Every generation THINKS they are the greatest generation that ever lived. All generations contribute. You may think this generation going into the work force is not up to scratch when that is not the reality. Each generation seems to be more travelled and more aware of the world around them. They seem to be more excepting and less critical of immigrants. Less likely to rant about their lot. Whatever age group you are the world is moving on.


          “The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”(Socrates)
          Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
            ^ That's very true. A lot of Canadian-born people see certain tasks/jobs as "beneath" them and refuse to do them, yet new Canadians take them on with pride.
            And a lot don't or wouldn't mind doing some jobs but they can work against you if you have a degree but mismatched work experience. The kid that graduates and builds his/her resume with related experience will get ahead faster and will be seen as a more suitable candidate than one taking what is seen as having worked a " "beneath" them " job.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by moahunter View Post
              Originally posted by KC View Post
              Also, you're are suggesting that the ones we will bring in will do the work domestic workers won't touch. So, are these better educated immigrants going to continue to do that work or quickly seek to attain better jobs (often by displacing slothful domestic worker), all in the name of upper mobility.
              I didn't say domestic work was slothful, or unskilled (if you wanna see slothful, see a lot of students at a university), I said a lot of Canadians are unwilling to do it. It always amazes me when we have high unemployment, yet I see job wanted signs at fast food restaurants, and people struggle to get labor to work in nursing homes and similar. We are very much first world spoiled. Most immigrants who IMO have a harder work ethic / greater desire to do whatever it takes to improve their lives and those of their families, are a good thing for our society, constant immigration is a big part of why, North America has been more successful economically than Europe.
              No it's not the jobs that are slothful. I said "displacing a slothful domestic worker" with domestic being Canadian born or raised.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by KC View Post
                And a lot don't or wouldn't mind doing some jobs but they can work against you if you have a degree but mismatched work experience. The kid that graduates and builds his/her resume with related experience will get ahead faster and will be seen as a more suitable candidate than one taking what is seen as having worked a " "beneath" them " job.
                Sometimes that is the case.

                But the example I keep thinking of are the abundant entry-level health care jobs (which pay decent entry-level salaries, usually offer good benefits, and lead into more health-related jobs) that mostly immigrants seem to gladly take, but Canadian-born people don't even want to do. A lot of Canadian-born people would rather settle for less pay at dead-end retail jobs because it's "cleaner".

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by KC View Post
                  So... We do it through immigration. In the future I can see a lot of people wanting to come here because the society they are leaving has depleted and/or destroyed much of its own resource base, impoverished a good portion of its population, not prioritized education, health care, equality, 'freedom' and the many things we have prioritized here in Canada - because we can afford to, while their societies missed that boat.

                  So, that's just how it is, Canada is attractive to many people in the world and we've benefitted in many ways from immigration. However, we just have to look at the older, 'matured' societies to see our own potential fate if we don't try to optimize our population size in relation to our wants and needs. Blindly pursuing growth in population purely because ever more people means ever more consumption, more construction, more of everything just seems to be twisted logic.




                  Another opinion I posted on another thread here:

                  Originally posted by KC View Post

                  Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies,
                  Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says - Bloomberg

                  Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

                  That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
                  When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

                  How carbon-heavy fuels are

                  How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP

                  GDP per capita

                  Population

                  After years of policymakers' yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
                  ..."


                  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...is-rieder-says

                  The philosopher's personal dilemma

                  "I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby," says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. "To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot."

                  Sadiye also wanted a big family. She grew up among extended relatives in the Turkish part of Cyprus and says she enjoyed having people around all the time

                  ...

                  Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows

                  For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

                  ...
                  He would have nations open up immigration to allow in the expected tens of millions of climate refugees.) Rieder's real hope is to change people's way of thinking about childbearing.

                  ...
                  http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349...climate-change
                  I don't think any party in power wants to blindly populate Canada just for the numbers. Immigrants (and refugees) not only take work they also create it
                  Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gemini View Post
                    Originally posted by KC View Post
                    So... We do it through immigration. In the future I can see a lot of people wanting to come here because the society they are leaving has depleted and/or destroyed much of its own resource base, impoverished a good portion of its population, not prioritized education, health care, equality, 'freedom' and the many things we have prioritized here in Canada - because we can afford to, while their societies missed that boat.

                    So, that's just how it is, Canada is attractive to many people in the world and we've benefitted in many ways from immigration. However, we just have to look at the older, 'matured' societies to see our own potential fate if we don't try to optimize our population size in relation to our wants and needs. Blindly pursuing growth in population purely because ever more people means ever more consumption, more construction, more of everything just seems to be twisted logic.




                    Another opinion I posted on another thread here:

                    Originally posted by KC View Post

                    Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies,
                    Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says - Bloomberg

                    Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

                    That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
                    When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

                    How carbon-heavy fuels are

                    How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP

                    GDP per capita

                    Population

                    After years of policymakers' yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
                    ..."


                    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...is-rieder-says

                    The philosopher's personal dilemma

                    "I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby," says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. "To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot."

                    Sadiye also wanted a big family. She grew up among extended relatives in the Turkish part of Cyprus and says she enjoyed having people around all the time

                    ...

                    Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows

                    For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

                    ...
                    He would have nations open up immigration to allow in the expected tens of millions of climate refugees.) Rieder's real hope is to change people's way of thinking about childbearing.

                    ...
                    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349...climate-change
                    I don't think any party in power wants to blindly populate Canada just for the numbers. Immigrants (and refugees) not only take work they also create it
                    Population growth creates all kinds of work by buying more homes, more cars, more of everything. Sounds great in theory and is great in many ways, but there are costs.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Canada is a great country and we have developed a wonderful society.
                      Immigration has been key to this. Our intake rate of newcomers is among the highest in the developed world. Why mess with something that works? I would like to see some hard economic data before such a radical change takes place.
                      From the article: "“It would obviously change the country considerably. It’s a different path… But I don’t think it’s crazy.”"
                      I also have concerns about the Liberals carrying this out. They state that they would recruit top business talent. This is in total contrast to their new immigration policy that is all about loosening immigration for family members, obviously squeezing out professional class immigrants.
                      http://www.canadim.com/justin-trudea...n-immigration/
                      Show me the need and some hard economic justification, not more Liberal B.S.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ralph60 View Post
                        Canada is a great country and we have developed a wonderful society.
                        Immigration has been key to this. Our intake rate of newcomers is among the highest in the developed world. Why mess with something that works? I would like to see some hard economic data before such a radical change takes place.
                        From the article: "“It would obviously change the country considerably. It’s a different path… But I don’t think it’s crazy.”"
                        I also have concerns about the Liberals carrying this out. They state that they would recruit top business talent. This is in total contrast to their new immigration policy that is all about loosening immigration for family members, obviously squeezing out professional class immigrants.
                        http://www.canadim.com/justin-trudea...n-immigration/
                        Show me the need and some hard economic justification, not more Liberal B.S.
                        We can say the same about debt and deficits. We've had them for decades and look at all the stuff we have as a result. So why mess with success? Answer, because more isn't always better. Some times, some things "hit the wall" and after that, all there is is the downside. However, the assumption that never ending population growth has done wonders for the world is an interesting proposition.

                        Take our population to 100 million, 500 million, 1 billion people... what's the limit, if there is one? China is doing great and amazing things with its 1.4 billion so why can't we? Moreover they are now an exporter so look at what their cheap labour has allowed them to attain.
                        Last edited by KC; 26-10-2016, 08:44 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Here's some numbers and conclusions...

                          “I think the main purpose of Canada’s high immigration policy is to lower wages – and inflate real estate values,” Stoffman said.

                          Daniel Stoffman, co-author of Boom,
                          Bust and Echo, says the government
                          pension system is solid and Canada will
                          not become a country of dependent
                          seniors because of the baby-boomer
                          generation.


                          10.09.2015


                          http://www.vancouversun.com/Daniel+S...956/story.html


                          Baby boom bubble is already deflating. Adjust accordingly (Interactive chart)

                          DOUGLAS TODD
                          More from Douglas Todd
                          Published on: October 10, 2015

                          Canada’s baby boomers have been the target of great discussion and fear.

                          Worries continue to proliferate that Canada is becoming “a nation of old people” as the baby-boom bulge enters retirement.

                          Alarm bells were ringing this month as the media reported on a Statistics Canada study showing the country has more people over 64 than under 15. Some raised the spectre of a “seniors tsunami.”

                          To be sure, the birth explosion that took place in Canada from 1947 to 1965 following the Second World War was unprecedented in the West. Typical Canadian mothers were having four babies.

                          As a result, Canadians are repeatedly told, mantra-like, to grimly prepare for baby boomers to age: Expect government pension plans to collapse, health care to be decimated and workers to be in short supply. To prepare for the “greying crisis,” companies chopped their pension plans, governments privatized more health care and Ottawa pushed immigration rates higher.

                          ...

                          Reflecting on baby boomers leaving the workforce, Stoffman and others say a second widespread “myth” to be confronted is that high immigration is necessary for economic growth. He acknowledges it is partly true: Newcomers inflate a country’s GDP.

                          “Immigration slightly increases the size of the economic pie, but the price of that small increase is a drop in wages.”

                          When Stoffman has given talks on his book on immigration, Who Gets In, he finds it is predominantly immigrants who come up to him after to agree with him.

                          The settled immigrants realize new immigrants will reduce everyone’s wages. And that is what has happened: Statistics Canada reports immigrants are doing worse economically than they did prior to the 1990s.

                          The average Canadian worker is also struggling more. Even though Metro Vancouver’s housing market is astronomically expensive, University of B.C. economics Prof. Craig Riddell says B.C. and Canadian incomes are lower and more unequal, full-time employment is decreasing and jobs are more at risk.

                          “I think the main purpose of Canada’s high immigration policy is to lower wages – and inflate real estate values,” Stoffman said.

                          In support of his view, he noted..."

                          ...
                          In the early 1980s, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau cut immigration levels by 25 per cent. It was not considered controversial. But that adjusting stopped with Brian Mulroney.

                          When Stoffman was asked how he would change immigration levels in light of Canada’s struggling economy, he suggested lowering it to 150,000 a year.
                          ...




                          http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...eractive-chart
                          Last edited by KC; 26-10-2016, 08:57 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A year old but fascinating information.

                            Douglas Todd: Values of some immigrants contrast sharply with 'Canadian' values





                            Douglas Todd: Values of some immigrants contrast sharply with 'Canadian' values
                            BY DOUGLAS TODD
                            ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: MAY 25, 2017

                            “...
                            The first mistake that Leitch’s critics make is dismissing the entire notion that most Canadians aspire to certain values. Their second mistake is assuming that talking about Canadian values is out-and-out xenophobic.

                            Despite the moral panic over Leitch’s proposal in Canada, ...rule of law.

                            And, believe it or not, reasoned public discussions about national values have already occurred in ...

                            The fact is, national values are easily measured with social-science techniques.

                            And I suggest people who are not ready to believe residents of different countries often hold different values are people who are not really prepared to embrace “diversity,” which means “difference.”
                            ...

                            Or, if we are willing to admit ethno-cultural differences exist, who are we to assume, as many Canadians do in a patronizing way, that immigrants will eventually become “just like us” anyways? ...”


                            http://vancouversun.com/opinion/colu...anadian-values

                            Bolding mine
                            Last edited by KC; 26-05-2018, 07:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Even if we could agree what Canadian values are, imposing such a test on new immigrants assumes that people's attitudes and beliefs don't evolve and change.

                              Had my parents been subjected to a values test when they immigrated to Canada in the 1950s, I'm not sure they would have been let in. My father especially had some very rigid ideas about gender roles in the family and society that today would be considered misogynistic. Forgot about other religions. Back in those days people like my parents thought Catholics would go to hell if they didn't repent of their idol worship and mistaken beliefs.

                              My parents values and beliefs evolved and changed a lot during their decades of living in Canada. The beliefs of their children and grandchildren even more so.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X