Zero: Net economic impact of immigration, Conference

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Zero. Zero is the net benefit of immigration to Canada.So it is stated from the Metropolis Conference in Vancouver at the Sheraton Hotel last week. I knew it wasn't great, but zero?

Immigrants lack the skills such as language, and they don't want to go to rural communities. Immigration has become a social program the federal govt should give up. It's not even a good business for the country any more. Depending on a skilled workforce from the Third World for economic growth is ludicrous if you think about it. That's why it's called the Third World, they lag in development there. The economic argument for immigration is dead.

So just how valuable are our immigrants?

So just how valuable are our immigrants?



By Ethan Baron, The Province March 25, 2011





Federal rural-immigration expert Christine Burton and UBC economics professor David Green participated in Thursday's conference on immigration issues.

Photograph by: Les Bazso, PNG




At a massive Vancouver conference on immigration to Canada, University of B.C. economics professor David Green said what few participants expected to hear.

“The net economic impact of immigration is in fact zero,” Green told the packed Grand Ballroom at the Sheraton Wall Centre on Thursday. “I’m very pro-immigration, but not for economic reasons. If you’re looking at it to be a major driver of economic growth, I think you’re looking in the wrong place.”

Speakers at the Metropolis 2011 conference on Thursday had already highlighted the economic importance of bringing in people from other countries. “Immigration is critical to Canada’s future,” B.C.’s Deputy Minister of Advanced Education Philip Steenkamp had said. “Without action, we know we will face a shortage of skills.”

But using immigration to fill labour-force gaps carries pitfalls, Green told participants, who number more than 1,000 for the four-day conference that started Wednesday evening. Natural market responses to labour shortages, such as pay hikes, can be obstructed when immigration increases the supply of workers and thus reduces wages, he said.

“I would rather live in a society where we pay enough for these jobs,” Green said, adding that he was once chewed out by a German hotel maid, something that would probably never happen in Canada where immigration keeps such workers poorly paid and “lower class.”

Ultimately, the reduction of wages resulting from an immigration-boosted labour supply neutralizes the positive effects coming from employed immigrants, immigrant entrepreneurs, and improved trade links forged by immigrants, Green said.

Green, however, noted after his talk that he was speaking only of first-generation immigrants. Federal-government rural-immigration expert Christine Burton said a longer-term, multi-generational view is essential to understanding the economic value of immigration. “The next generation is very conscious that they’ve been given an opportunity and they need to take advantage of it,” Burton said. “They’re able to access better educational opportunities [than their parents]. They’re able as a result to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities.”

Green acknowledged that children of immigrants likely have a greater positive economic impact than their parents, and said first-generation immigrants to rural areas appear to produce greater positive economic effects than those coming to big cities.
And it is in rural B.C. that there will be perhaps the best opportunities for immigrants in coming years, as seven of 10 small business owners in these areas are 55 or older, Deputy Minister Steenkamp said in a conference plenary session.

Encouraging immigrants to stay in rural communities will be a challenge, Burton said, because those who arrive in such areas don’t tend to stay. “They come to rural Canada, we welcome them, we embrace them, and then they go to the bright lights of the big city,” Burton said.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
The second generation has a greater positive impact? So I guess that means we should let immigrants in and then encourage them to have lots and lots of babies.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So do we through the baby out with the bathwater? Impose higher language and other necessry standards to integration, and Bingo! It's not quantity we ought to focus on (quotas are senseless1), but quality (if they have what it takes to integrate, does it matter how many we accepts?).
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Why even throw out the bath water? What's the problem here? Zero net impact. That's neither good nor bad. It's neutral. If it was a negative net impact and second generation Canadians were positive, you'd have to see how positive and how negative to see if the negative is offset and we have a multi-generational net benefit. But it's not negative; it's zero. So the next generation isn't making up for a loss. It's all gain.

There are two important implications I think. If you increased immigration, chances are you'll reach a point of diminishing returns. Our housing, education and economy can't support an unlimited amount of immigrants. Eventually the first generation might have more and more negative impact and second generations could lose their edge. But if we lower immigration, first generation would still be at zero to a point but there would be fewer second generations and so less people providing a positive impact. Maybe we should just keep immigration at what it is.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
I don't believe this 'zero net impact' in our present economy. Unemployment is at its highest levels in 100 years and we are still allowing more people into the country. If we had almost 0 unemployment and strong economic growth then I can buy it but not right now.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
The unemployment rate is at 7.8%, which is down from 8.1% in 2009. So hardly at its highest levels in 100 years. It's actually at its highest levels in 1-2 years.

Or if you want to consider the past few years part of the same cycle and these minor perturbations not relevant in a wider trend, unemployment was last higher than it is now in 1998 (8.3%). So unemployment is at its highest levels in 12-13 years! You can still get histrionic about that. Other unemployment peaks include 11.2% in 1993 and 12% in 1983.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
For those who are interested this article was in today's paper. It appears that Russia's population is in serious decline, creating a number of problems both now and in the future. It can be argued that even if immigrants do not make a major impact upon their arrival in Canada they at least prevent the scenario in Russia.

Russia's population falls during Putin's decade
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
I don't believe this 'zero net impact' in our present economy. Unemployment is at its highest levels in 100 years and we are still allowing more people into the country. If we had almost 0 unemployment and strong economic growth then I can buy it but not right now.

I totally agree with that. Capital wants labour to have excessive competition for jobs. We have the same immigration levels as five years ago when the economy was booming, 300,000+ per year. Time for a revamp.

With more demanding jobs such as in the service industry like information and computers, people from Third World countries simply can't cope. Thus their incomes are stagnant and dropping. So much for a brain drain from the 3rd world to here. Reports Stats Can:

The Daily, Tuesday, January 30, 2007. Study: Low-income rates among immigrants entering Canada