[Newsbot]

Title: John McCallum wants to 'substantially increase' immigration to fill Canada's labour needs
Category: Political
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2016-08-12 19:59:49
Canadian

[PJB]

My question is very simple. With the current unemployment rate in Canada why not wait til we have 100% employment and then draw in foreign workers

[ShepherdsDog]

Furinurs Wil werk cheep. Undurmind the laybor marcut?

[martin14]

PJB PJB:

My question is very simple. With the current unemployment rate in Canada why not wait til we have 100% employment and then draw in foreign workers

What ?

Are you racist or something ?

How dare you put the interests of Canadians ahead of other people, what is wrong with you ?

.
.

We could be in a 1930's type depression, and the Liberals would still be pushing
for record immigration.

It's new voters for them. To shame all the dirty white racists.
Cheap labour. Keep the housing bubble going.
More government programs.
More pressure on middle and lower income people, but seriously,
who cares about them anyway.

[ShepherdsDog]

More photo ops for Sunnyways McSelfie. Furrinurz make for better propoganda than doing something about third world, political and economic, conditions existing on Canadian reserves or child poverty. Unemployed oil field workers....pfffft.

[Thanos]

Nike stock will be going up huge with all the Air Jordans McCallum will be handing out to the new arrivals. Wonder if he's got Nike as a significant portion of his own personal portfolio?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

John McCallum is an idiot. We are beyond the limit of sustainability when it comes to immigration and refugees. Even the economic experts and the very pro-immigration experts in Europe have exclaimed that our immigration plan is unsustainable. While there are several countries that receive more immigrants and refugees than we do, they also have significantly higher populations. Yet despite the higher volume, none of those countries is approaching 1% of the total population when it comes to intake, but Canada is. We take in 1% of our total population every year, a number deemed by some experts to be reckless.

This could lead to the Liberals quick demise though. No recent govt has messed with the immigration rate because it's a losing game no matter what they do. Based a poll released a year or so ago, roughly 50% of Canadians support the current immigration rate. 25% want to see it increased and about 25% want to see it lowered.
Changing the rate has the chance of pissing off 75% of the population.

[llama66]

Just because you can does not mean you should.

[Caelon]

Canada has a demographics issue. We have this huge slug of baby boomers moving through the population. When they hit the work force they funded programs for seniors such as CPP, OAS and GIS. In the 80's when they were 20 to 40 year olds the government woke up and realized it could no longer fund the CPP from general revenue. The self funded version was born and contribution rates climbed from 1.8 to the 4.95% of today matched by the employer. So the self employed pay 9.9% of income to the YMPE. The other programs come from general revenue including health care.

Now the boomers are 50 to 70 years old and starting to really use the health care system. They are also the longest lived generation. In 1970 the average life span for a male was 69 and now it is 79 (women 83). Today 25% of Canadians are living past 90 and the fastest growing age group is centenanians. In 20 years the average lifspan will most likely be getting close to 90. They are going to be a huge burden on the health care system and require massive funding through taxes. Don't forget they are out of the workforce and living off of savings. If they structured themselves well they will have a portion of their retirement income as tax free. Those that did not take care of tehmselves will be subsidized through the tax system.

Stats Can states the population of 55 to 64 exceeds the 15 to 24 age group and the over 65 are 15.7% of the population. With the growing retired block there is a bigger burden on the working portion to pay enough taxes to support them. Domestic birth rate is not sufficient to increase the work force required to pay the taxes. Our population growth is coming from immigrants.

Immigrants are at the right age bracket to contribute to the economy. First generation Canadians aslo tend to have more than 2 children which supports population growth.

Yes we have an economic slump in some portions of the country, but this too will pass. Oil tends to have a 7 year boom bust cycle so expect the turn around in western employment to start in the next 12 months and expand over the following 5 to 7 years.

When I am a senior I want good medical care, good senior facilities and enough younger people in the work force to pay the taxes to keep me comfortable. Looks like more immigrants.

[andyt]

It's been shown to reverse the demographic trend we would need to import 1,000,000 young people every year. Anybody in favor of that? And how does McCallum square this with opening up the family reunification category, ie parents and grandparents? Either way, what happens when the 1,000,000 young people get old and need govt services. Where will we import the millions needed every year to support them from? Meanwhile we have a housing crisis in Vancouver, and can't/won't pay for the infrastructure and services all these newcomers need.

Trying to import/grow your way out of trouble on a finite planet is a mug's game.

[Winnipegger]

Here is a video talking about demographics, markets, future economy. I believe this is what John McCallum is responding to. Not this video, but these issues.
WM Executive Sustainability Forum Peter Zeihan Speech

The beginning talks about demographics. Normally a large number of young people work, spend, and provide funding for heathcare and pensions. But Canada, like most of the world, has a declining birth rate. Those worried of overpopulation will like that, but how do you pay for healthcare or pensions?

1:

CanadaDemographic.jpg [ 24.65 KiB | Viewed 542 times ]

For some reason the United States has a large generation "Y", while most of the rest of the world doesn't. This is labelled "B" for Baby Boomes, generation "X", and generation "Y". Millennials aren't labelled but their the youngest. Notice in the US generation "Y" is almost as large as Boomers, so the US will be Ok in 15 years. Also note in the US, there are as many Millennials as gen "X". I Canada, there are more gen "Y" than gen "X", but few gen "Y" than Boomers. And even fewer Canadian Millennials than gen "X".

0:

USDemographic.jpg [ 28.76 KiB | Viewed 538 times ]

[Winnipegger]

andyt andyt:

Trying to import/grow your way out of trouble on a finite planet is a mug's game.

Mars? Near Earth Asteroids? Main belt asteroids?

[andyt]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Here is a video talking about demographics, markets, future economy. I believe this is what John McCallum is responding to. Not this video, but these issues.
WM Executive Sustainability Forum Peter Zeihan Speech

The beginning talks about demographics. Normally a large number of young people work, spend, and provide funding for heathcare and pensions. But Canada, like most of the world, has a declining birth rate. Those worried of overpopulation will like that, but how do you pay for healthcare or pensions?

1:

CanadaDemographic.jpg

For some reason the United States has a large generation "Y", while most of the rest of the world doesn't. This is labelled "B" for Baby Boomes, generation "X", and generation "Y". Millennials aren't labelled but their the youngest. Notice in the US generation "Y" is almost as large as Boomers, so the US will be Ok in 15 years. Also note in the US, there are as many Millennials as gen "X". I Canada, there are more gen "Y" than gen "X", but few gen "Y" than Boomers. And even fewer Canadian Millennials than gen "X".

0:

USDemographic.jpg

But it turns out the world’s population isn’t growing nearly as fast as it once did. In fact, experts say the rate of population growth will continue to slow and that the total population will eventually — likely within our lifetimes — fall.

(LIST: TIME Special Report: The World at 7 Billion)

$1:

This isn’t news for two of the world’s most populous countries, Japan and Russia, which as TIME reported in 2011 are both facing rapidly declining birthrates. In general, developed countries where more women have the means for financial independence and motherhood isn’t a given are facing much slower rates of population growth. Many Western European countries have birthrates below the population-replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman: Spain and Italy are tied at 1.4; Holland and Belgium, 1.8; and Germany is at 1.36.

The U.S. has seemingly been immune to the declining-birthrate trend. But in 2011, the Pew Research Center found that the birthrate in the U.S. reached its lowest point ever recorded: 63.2 children per 1,000 women of childbearing age.

In Slate, Jeff Wise reports that the babymaking slowdown is due to “demographic transition” — basically, the phenomenon whereby humans, long used to having large families to cope with the society-decimating consequences of famine, war and disease, begin to rein in childbirth as these threats dissipate. Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University, explained it to Wise as “a shift between two very different long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.”

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/11/ove ... declining/

[Winnipegger]

Rather than immigration, this is why both the Conservatives and Liberals introduced child benefits. It's intended to bribe people to have more babies. Don't think it's working, though. What else? Wild drinking parties with no condoms?

[andyt]

Learn to run economies on a sustainable basis.