Canada’s cities see immigration-driven population surge after pandemic lull

[petros]

Big picture. Apply the facts and accuracy to the big picture rather than bits and pieces and we'll end up agreeing.

Please explain how a diminishing workforce can support a rapidly growing retirement sector and maintain the infrastructure of the nation without heavy inflation and increased taxation? Add in the debt and it gets even bleaker.

500,000 immigrants a year is the tip of the iceberg. In 5 years it'll could be 750,000 and then 1M in 10 years until we are back to an upright pyramid with a big base.

 

[The_Foxer]

Big picture. Apply the facts and accuracy to the big picture rather than bits and pieces and we'll end up agreeing.

What i presented was the big picture., at least federally.

Please explain how a diminishing workforce can support a rapidly growing retirement sector and maintain the infrastructure of the nation without heavy inflation and increased taxation?

There are a number of problems with that question.

First - our work force is not diminishing. It is actuallly growing and has been for some time and would continue to do so with the modest immigration we had previously. As i stated - no need for this record amount to achieve that. But lets say that this WAS the thing trudeau was trying to solve (which it isn't), then the solution would be to have a heavily targeted immigraiton quota, not to increase it. Increasing it just adds to inflation and other woes you mentioned.

Second, the rapidly growing retirement sector is largely self funded. Most have significant assets and cpp, the largest benefit, is already funded with well over 400 billion dollars in assets as i posted. The area they're NOT funded for is medical which i noted previously but as i also pointed out the feds don't care about that. They're not footing that bill, and trudeau is letting the percent of the costs of medical services the feds fund slip lower.

And as i just poitned out, immigration adds to inflation. It doesn't solve inflation. We'd have less inflation without it. So i'm curious - how did you arrive at the conclusion that having more people competing for the same goods would lower inflation?

Add in the debt and it gets even bleaker.

Not for the federal gov't it doesn't, at least not in the short term which is what justin cares about.

500,000 immigrants a year is the tip of the iceberg. In 5 years it'll could be 750,000 and then 1M in 10 years

It would be with trudeau in power, that's for sure. We're not disagreeing that immigration is increasing. But the reason for it is as i previously stated, the 'pyramid' scheme discussed. It's not to cover pensions or retirement. In ten years with just our previously normal immigration the baby boomer bubble would be largely burst thanks to the deaths, with a higher percent of people working and a lower percent of people retired than we're facing right now.

Our 'aging population' is not the reason that trudeau wants to radically increase immigration. The reason is that as long as immigration increases substantially every year, he can pay today's bills with future money and not get caught. That will come crashing down once that policy stops or is no longer viable.

It's important to know why the gov't is doing the things it's doing. Knowing helps you prepare for and understand the challenges a future gov't will face. It helps us as voters make intelligent decisions. For example, understanding what yearly increases in immigration does for the feds means that if a politican were to promise to radically reduce immigration the day he got in you would be aware that this would crash our economy because of the scheme trudeau is playing. It would have to be reduced over time along with a significant increase in worker's opportunities and higher wage jobs or very significant reductions in per capita spending. That's valuable information as a voter.

 

[petros]

First - our work force is not diminishing. It is actuallly growing and has been for some time and would continue to do so with the modest immigration we had previously. As i stated - no need for this record amount to achieve that.

Canada’s severe labour shortages will continue to be a problem in the long term, according to a report, citing declining labour force participation rates, an aging population and declining fertility rates.

"Despite a robust recovery from the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian economic growth will continue slowing down due to persistent inflation and an historically tight labour market," says Tu Nguyen, economist and ESG director at RSM Canada.

Our 'aging population' is not the reason that trudeau wants to radically increase immigration. The reason is that as long as immigration increases substantially every year, he can pay today's bills with future money and not get caught. That will come crashing down once that policy stops or is no longer viable.

Canada must rely on immigration to replenish the labour pool, says RSM.

“Already, whatever growth has come in the millennial and gen-Z workforce has been because of immigration. This is not lost on policymakers, who have… ambitious goals for bringing in more… devised several economic pathways and outlined ambitious goals for bringing in more than 400,000 immigrants per year between 2022 and 2024.

It's important to know why the gov't is doing the things it's doing. Knowing helps you prepare for and understand the challenges a future gov't will face. It helps us as voters make intelligent decisions. For example, understanding what yearly increases in immigration does for the feds means that if a politican were to promise to radically reduce immigration the day he got in you would be aware that this would crash our economy because of the scheme trudeau is playing. It would have to be reduced over time along with a significant increase in worker's opportunities and higher wage jobs or very significant reductions in per capita spending. That's valuable information as a voter.

At the moment, more people are leaving the job market than entering it. One in seven Canadians are between the ages of 55 and 64 years old, which is the highest number of people ever nearing retirement age. When compounded with decades of falling birth rates, these vacancies simply cannot be filled.Aug 11, 2022
https://www.macleans.ca › economy

How the labour shortage got so bad - Macleans.ca​

And as i just poitned out, immigration adds to inflation. It doesn't solve inflation. We'd have less inflation without it. So i'm curious - how did you arrive at the conclusion that having more people competing for the same goods would lower inflation?

I said inflation is only going to rise without immigration. Fact and accuracy.

Please explain how a diminishing workforce can support a rapidly growing retirement sector and maintain the infrastructure of the nation without heavy inflation and increased taxation? Add in the debt and it gets even bleaker

Apparently facts and accuracy are merely your opinions(alternative facts).

I'm not the only one who disagrees with your opinions.

Answer this: Does a shrinking labour force increase or decrease GDP? A decline in GDP up's or lowers inflation? How does immigration raise inflation when its used to up GDP?

 

[The_Foxer]

Canada’s severe labour shortages will continue to be a problem in the long term,

Not in the long term. Short to medium. A lot of people retired and retired early during covid. But long term it's not much of a problem. And if it were then highly targeted immigration would be the solution, not just increasing the volume which also increases demands on services.

Canada must rely on immigration to replenish the labour pool, says RSM.

Sure. We don't replenish our own population naturally. Nobody has suggested that immigration isn't necessary.

But YOUR point was that it was necessary to pay for old people. That's not true. And we certainly don't need more than we bring in now.

This is the other thing you do. When your point is proven to be wrong, you try to pretend you never made that point and switch to a completely different point. This is why people have a problem with you. I'm just nice enough to actually point it out and explain it. Which often leads to you getting so angry about me being correct that you ban me. Which is grossly inappropriate.

At no time did i suggest that immigration wasn't necessary for reasons OTHER than the one YOU STATED. In fact i specifically stated it was necessary and a declining population has many negative effects. So... what's your point bringing up this new issue?

At the moment, more people are leaving the job market than entering it.

Sure. Short term that's an issue. Within 6 years it won't be. Truth be told it's already begining to ease, and we'll likely see modest improvement by the end of this year.

I said inflation is only going to rise without immigration. Fact and accuracy.

That is inaccurate. Without immigration inflation rates go down. More people competing over the same goods is MORE inflation, not less.

Please explain how a diminishing workforce can support a rapidly growing retirement sector and maintain the infrastructure of the nation without heavy inflation and increased taxation? Add in the debt and it gets even bleaker​

Followed by:

Apparently facts and accuracy are merely your opinions(alternative facts).

uuuuuh - that was your quote. Not mine. You quoted yourself and then complained about a lack of accuracy. I honestly don't know what to tell you.

I'm not the only one who disagrees with your opinions.

Apparently you don't disagree with my opinions at all seeing as you've stopped disputing the ones i brought up and are now trying to bring up new ones.

Answer this: Does a shrinking labour force increase or decrease GDP? A decline in GDP up's or lowers inflation? How does immigration raise inflation when its used to up GDP?

Honestly, can't you look this stuff up yourself? You'd know it was a poor question if you knew how gdp works.

Labour force and GDP are not directly connected. At best they are somewhat related. A smaller labour force creating more value per year will create more gdp than a larger workforce creating less. Services tend to preduce the most gdp so if our service industry grows our GDP does even if the overall workforce is the same or smaller. Mexico and Japan have almost exactly the same population yet Japan's GDP is almost 5 times higher.

So the answer to your first question is "it depends". obviously YOU thought more people meant higher GDP but that is NOT always the case. In a very general sense, the more people the more gdp is sort of likely to go up but that is absolutely not a correlation relationship.

Likewise GDP Does not directly affect inflation in the slightest. We've had massive swings in GDP over the last 20 years - yet inflation stayed almost exactly the same.

Immigration's effect on gdp and inflation are absolutely not connected. Other than gdp and inflation are both money issues. Increased immigration means more people are competing for the same resources, which is what leads to inflation.

And again - none of this has anything to do with your stated point which was that immigration is needed to pay for the elderly. Have you given up that notion?

 

[petros]

Lets see something other than your opinion please.

 

[Taxslave2]

Well of course we don't. IF we did then there'd be no initial benefit for trudeau to capitalize on. And in fact the numbers clearly show that the second generation is actually more productive than the average Canadian.

What he's taking advantage of is the gap between when they start earning money and when they pay enough taxes to pay for the upgraded infrastructure. In time they absolutely will but initially they don't so he can exploit the revenues. The problem is that always leaves a constant shortage of services because the need is always increasing at an accellerated pace instead of a liner one.

So - if you bring in 100 new immigrants and on average over the next 10 years they'll pay 10 dollars in taxes each you get 1000 dollars in tax, if it costs 500 dollars for the infrastructure to support them then as long as you've got a rolling number of 100 per year then you're fine,

BUT -if you bring in 100 this year and spend their money without the infrastructure upgrades, then you have a short term surplus but longer term there's a serious deficit because there's no money for infrastructure. So you bring in 200 the next year - spend some of their money on the infrastructure for last year's 100 to keep people off your back and pocket the rest. Which means next year you need to bring in 300 - and so on and so on.

So trudeau keeps increasing the number while going slower on providing the appropriate cash to compensate for the growth to the provinces. Health care transfers per capita are going down because the population is going up. And as long as he keeps bringing in more and more each year, that works. At least until suddenly there's a serious employment downturn and there's no jobs for the new arrivals.

That's the game he's playing.

So ideally, the downturn in jobs should hit just after PP becomes PM. PP of course will be taking power basically as a receiver would for a bankrupt company. And be portrayed as a meany because he is not handing out candy to the kids. The fact that he took over a bankrupt country will be played down in the lame stream media because their baby bonuses will be cut off as well.

 

[Taxslave2]

viable.

It's important to know why the gov't is doing the things it's doing. Knowing helps you prepare for and understand the challenges a future gov't will face. It helps us as voters make intelligent decisions. For example, understanding what yearly increases in immigration does for the feds means that if a politican were to promise to radically reduce immigration

I believe the government is doing what it is largely because of incompetence. You are giving them far too much credit.

 

[The_Foxer]

Lets see something other than your opinion please.

I posted facts straight from the gov't website

Sorry kiddo, we've reached the end. Obviously you've recognized i was correct initially and you're just getting frustrated that you can't make your point stick, and that's not my problem. We'll try again on another subject but at the end of the day if you don't actually do your research before hand then you'll have to accept if you're wrong and people correct you. Just make better arguments.

 

[The_Foxer]

So ideally, the downturn in jobs should hit just after PP becomes PM. PP of course will be taking power basically as a receiver would for a bankrupt company. And be portrayed as a meany because he is not handing out candy to the kids. The fact that he took over a bankrupt country will be played down in the lame stream media because their baby bonuses will be cut off as well.

That is, historically, right out of the Liberal play book. That is what happened last time there was a trudeau, and of course when harper got us through a major economic downturn with flying colours the liberals re-wrote history again to make it look like it was all his fault when in fact it was one of the most genious bits of economic management we've ever seen as a country.

The liberal tactics have always been spend till things break, the cpc takes over and cleans the mess, the libs come back and say 'why are conservatives so mean, we don't need this 'austerity' (Now that the books are balanced)"

 

[The_Foxer]

I believe the government is doing what it is largely because of incompetence. You are giving them far too much credit.

The gov't is incompetent The advisors it hires for craptonnes of money are not. But - they are not hired to benefit canadians, they're hired to give the liberals what the want, and what the liberals want is to delay the economic collapse their overspending will bring on for as long as possible, or at least appear to.

In the end tho, even if you're right the result will be the same.

 

[petros]

I posted facts straight from the gov't website

Sorry kiddo, we've reached the end. Obviously you've recognized i was correct initially and you're just getting frustrated that you can't make your point stick, and that's not my problem. We'll try again on another subject but at the end of the day if you don't actually do your research before hand then you'll have to accept if you're wrong and people correct you. Just make better arguments.

No you didn't.

You just don't like Chinks, Pakis and Flips so you say a pile of bullshit to keep from discussing reality of immigration.

 

[The_Foxer]

No you didn't.

You just don't like Chinks, Pakis and Flips so you say a pile of bullshit to keep from discussing reality of immigration.

Sure kiddo.

 

[petros]

It's obvious.

 

[The_Foxer]

Sure kiddo