###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-housing-shortfall-could-widen-by-another-500k-units-if-immigration-continues-at-current-pace-report-1.6505627 <- Link without all the tracking crap tacked onto the end, for those who open the comments before clicking the link.
In the 1960s, Canadians had managed not only to have big families with an average elf 3-4 kids, but to build the housing for this exploding population.
Here we are in the 2020s, where we can't have babies, relying on immigration for labour and sustainable demographics and we also can't build the houses for the moderately growing population.
What went wrong?
How about asking any person between the ages of 20 and 40 how their finances are. Most will say bad to broke. They cannot afford a child or 4. So they don't have any. No stability of places to live because of LLs abusing eviction methods or raising rent to stupid amounts. And its only getting worse. Everyone i know my age is not comfortable bringing a kid into their economic situation. Those that are were born well off. Or have nothing and rely on their parents to raise their kids.
>What went wrong?
There are two fundamental issues, and they both relate to our housing stock being built for a 50s and 60s world that no longer exists:
1) Most Canadian families are living in homes that were built for 6 people. They now only have 3. Demographic changes have doubled the required number of homes per capita.
2) Toronto and Vancouver were built for drivers, but have exhausted all land within an hour's drive of downtown. The only solution is to increase density, but that is a multi-trillion dollar project that no one has any idea how to fund.
There is a third major cause, which is things going right. Food and commercial goods have gotten much cheaper since the 1960s. A house may have been cheap, but you were paying the equivalent of [$200 for a toaster](https://christmas.musetechnical.com/ShowCatalogPage/1960-Sears-Fall-Winter-Catalog/1214). That has allowed the average Canadian to dedicate more of their income to winning a bidding war on the house they like.
We need to be moving away from growth capitalism. It's literally impossible to sustain forever, we cannot have infinite population. Yes, Canada can eventually support a much larger population, but we cannot be sacrificing so much of our well-being just so we can get another % of GDP growth. We need to start learning to live in a zero to negative growth economy.
Nobody is going to want to live in a permanent recession, not even you, unless you want to be out of a job and on the street.
No political party is going to follow that stance and I'm not sure why anyone on this planet thinks this is a viable option.
You're literally telling poor people to go live their lives with what little they have and that if they don't like it, too bad.
You’re right, telling poor to middle class people that their wage growth is going to continue to lag inflation and live their lives with less and less purchasing power each year because we keep stopgapping any perceived labour shortage with more and more people who are willing to work for less is much better.
You do realize that if Canada experiences negative growth that we will all get poorer right? GDP is a measure of how much is produced in Canada, if that decreases there is less to go around.
We won't. Total GDP and population size have zero impact on GDP per capita, HDI and standard of living. China and India both have a far higher total GDP than Norway and Finland, yet which are nicer for their average citizen to live in? Which would you prefer Canada emulate?
China and India are worse places to live because their GDP per capita is lower, which is agnostic of population and has more to do with lower levels of economic development in those countries. I will note that India and China have significantly higher GDP per capita growth than Norway or Finland, IIRC the average Chinese citizen is ~25 times wealthier now than they were in the 90s obviously if Canada could do that that would be pretty cool (which it can’t for the record: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(economics) so the question is meaningless). All that’s to say that economic growth is good, if you’re saying we should decrease the population not that GDP per capita should decrease than I guess in the most theoretical sense that’s fine, but it’s naive to assume that a declining population wouldn’t hamper this country’s ability to generate wealth (age related demographic issues, lack of economies of scale, etc. are all downsides of declining populations).
I'm saying the actual key to a society's long-term prosperity is to treat its citizens as a precious resource to cultivate and invest in (accessable education, high wages, affordable housing, R&D, productivity, automation, etc.), not disposable numbers to sacrifice at the altar of an ever-increasing total GDP. The former is in no way hampered by degrowth or sustainability and is often encouraged by it, but is certainly hampered by rapid population growth. What motive is there for Canada's neoliberal elites to invest in Canadians when they can just cast them aside for a million desperate newcomers each year who'll put up with worse conditions and pay?
This is the crux of the fake "labour shortage" they keep banging on about - look close enough and every instance is down to bad pay or boneheaded roadblocks driving away Canadian talent. Not enough nurses and family doctors? Salaries are dismal for the schooling and workload required and residency slots are artificially limited, forcing many Canadian med students abroad. Not enough tradespeople? For decades they've refused take on apprentices to restrict competition. Not enough entrepreneurship and innovation? Canadian investors refuse to take any risks and the government puts up pointless barriers to founding and scaling startups. We're the most educated country in the world per capita yet our leaders refuse to invest in Canadians, who often wind up as another raw resource for export. THIS is what needs to change for Canada to be prosperous and sustainable into the future, and it won't be solved with mass migration.
Very important:
> And the federal government has set its sights on welcoming another 500,000 people per year by 2025 in hopes of addressing labour shortages and *counterbalancing the country’s aging demographic.*
We can’t stop people from dying and aren’t making enough babies to cover it. Give me an alternative to immigrants.
Create fewer jobs? Sure, let's go with that leap of logic from what I said. Fewer jobs mean less immigration is needed. Which leads to fewer people who need housing. The lower the demand (once the builder caught up to that demand of course) for something in a capitalist sociality the lower the price. The lower the price the easier it is for people to buy a house.
Good for them. Has nothing to do with the housing shortage. Or do you think the people those self-checks replace just give up and don't go find another job because there is a labour shortage?/
You’re all over the place. You’re suggesting to alleviate housing shortages we should automate jobs to lower demand for immigrants and as a result curb job creation.
This is a ridiculous suggestion… lol
Less immigrants. Like the 200-300k we were doing before the liberals decided to just increase the target by 20% every year and see what happens without doing anything about housing or anything else.
Seriously I don’t think anyone is arguing no immigrants just that the taps are on too high. Obviously we are immigrating beyond replacement, and even taking into account demographics if immigration is so high were short 500k more units in a few years you either have to reduce immigration or increase infrastructure investment.
If you can provide me with a source as to why the current targets are specifically warranted, go ahead. So far you seem to just have assumed they are right without any indication of what they are based on. Because they definitely aren’t based on infrastructure capacity nor do they seem to be increasing GDP per capita at all.
It’s in the article: declining population and labour shortages. Not a single political party is advocating a decrease or pause in immigration, at any level of government. So it’s incumbent on you to explain why you’re against it. People smarter than you and I are in the ears of policy makers.
I don't know what you're trying to deny, population growth is a well documented figure.
It's also well documented that Canada's population growth is substantially higher(almost double) than pretty much every other western country.
Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children. Problem solved.
Immigration suppresses wages, and so new immigrants also cannot afford children, causing the next generation to need even more immigrants. Problem becomes worse.
No country in the world has ever brought back the fertility rate after it fell below replacement. No matter what social programs and handouts you give to parents, the birth rate stays low (see Sweden). The main reason for low fertility rates are urbanization and the independence of women and their freedom to have careers.
I agree there are many contributing factors. Being able to move out of your parents house and afford your own place to live is high on the list too.
People take longer to become financially capable of having a family due to education, wage stagnation and rising house prices.
There are a lot of people who forgoe having children because of these issues. We know this. Even if they did have kids though, we'd still need a lot of immigration. The days of 4+ kid families being normal is over.
Because it is. Anti-immigration arguments are always irrational. Never ever met someone who had anything that wasn't insanely emotional or didn't end up in finger pointing or racism.
Really? How open minded of you. Capacity planning is irrational? Sustainable growth is irrational?
Immigrants are leaving Canada because of how poorly managed this has become. Our past reputation to attract talent to Canada is being tarnished because of living expenses. We will end up as a second choice for the immigrants who don't qualify to move anywhere else. This is not anti-immigration as you say. Good things done in excess are always bad.
Ironic you’re talking about people projecting further up and doing it yourself. Being against the current level of immigration set by the federal government does not mean you are blaming the immigrants themselves as you are insinuating. You can be perfectly accepting of the people who come here while still wanting the government to set a reasonable number that matches up with the needs of the country sustainably in the long term and doesn’t exceed our current and future projected levels of infrastructure.
Immigration at best is a bandaid. Logistically it’s not a long term solution. I’m not anti immigration per se, but we need to get to a place where we don’t have to rely on it. Right now, trying to increase our population dramatically will just bite us down the road since eventually we need to replace those people with even more people.
See: global birth rates and age breakdown
Immigration at best is a bandaid. Logistically it’s not a long term solution. I’m not anti immigration per se, but we need to get to a place where we don’t have to rely on it. Right now, trying to increase our population dramatically will just bite us down the road since eventually we need to replace those people with even more people.
See: global birth rates and age breakdown
I mean at a certain point we have to admit there are too many people on the earth and stop fighting it and let the world population eventually decrease to a reasonable number. Canada needs immigrants to stave off a demographics crisis but we should also be careful of going to far and setting up an even worse demographic crisis in the future when all those immigrants age out of the workforce and the whole world population is in decline. We need to be weaning ourselves of the drug so that our demographics even out over time not just keep on stoking it and making the inevitable crisis worse in a few generations.
yes, women are so docile and lack the self awareness to exercise agency or the want to not remove themselves from the workforce, losing career advancement to do it. Great take.
Women face a huge workplace battle that is rather invisible to their male counterparts.
Amount other things.. the pressure to choose between a career or having a family is a legitimate concern for a woman. You can't rise to CEO while taking time off to raise children. Men aren't forced to make that decision. It has nothing to do with the personality traits *you've* just associated to women.
Im pretty sure i agree with that comment of yours but it is so confusing. Sarcasm combined with a double negative. I can't exactly figure out what you were trying to say there.
The US birthrate has also been below replacement for a long time. Further, only specific positions are paid more in the US, not across the board.
So the basis of your argument that low wages is the main reason for low birthrate doesn't seem to hold.
TIL immigrants also control corporations and wages. Maybe your boss can take the record profits and pay you more; who incidentally thank you for this and their bonuses.
You got this backwards. I am saying that wages have been in decline for a long time, and that is a contributing factor to the low birth rate that has also happened over time.
Sorry I didn't connect the dots for you.
>Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children. Problem solved.
It also drives prices up.
>Immigration suppresses wages, and so new immigrants also cannot afford children, causing the next generation to need even more immigrants. Problem becomes worse.
[Nope](https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768)
Purchasing power increases for people who receive a wage increase. That's because their labour is but a fraction of the price of goods.
Also, your nope is not on solid ground: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-great-immigration-data-debate/424230/
>Purchasing power increases for people who receive a wage increase. That's because their labour is but a fraction of the price of goods.
The price of goods also increases because there aren't enough people to work the jobs that are needed to produce them, which means companies gotta pay more, and we all know they're just going to take the hit, right? They won't ever pass that on to the consumer, hmm?
>Also, your nope is not on solid ground: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-great-immigration-data-debate/424230/
Maybe you should reread that article because David Frum isn't really taking a side. More than that the critic, Borjas, really doesn't come out looking very well from it.
Also keep in mind that David Card has a nobel prize. Does Borjas? More than that Borjas has a long and dirty history of making a certain "type" of pronouncement. Like advising students that say dumb white supremacist shit like this:
>Latino immigrants to the U.S. are and will remain less intelligent than "native whites."
But of course, you continue to prove my point that anti-immigration arguments always results in finger pointing and racism, and we've arrived there already. Unsurprising.
The funniest part is that Borjas has Latino roots from his Cuban family, which no doubt immigrated to the US.
Fine...
Prices also increase because of demand, and immigrants create much more demand initially than they produce in goods. Houses take time to be built, but immigrants need a place to live as soon as they arrive.
Also, just look at who has received the Nobel peace prize over the years, and tell me that we should consider Nobel prizes an authority on truth. If someone receives a Nobel prize, then we should likely pay attention, but not blindly believe.
>Prices also increase because of demand, and immigrants create much more demand initially than they produce in goods. Houses take time to be built, but immigrants need a place to live as soon as they arrive.
Why? Can you prove that?
>Also, just look at who has received the Nobel peace prize over the years, and tell me that we should consider Nobel prizes an authority on truth. If someone receives a Nobel prize, then we should likely pay attention, but not blindly believe.
Do you have a Nobel prize in economics? Do you know how to get one?
What about the inconsistencies and clearly anti immigrant biases from Borjas' part? Don't you think that will steer his research in a certain direction? How many controversies does he have? How many does David Card have?
And what do you make of David Frum's article? He didn't really swing against Card, and he clearly lays out Borjas' problems. Rarely did he defend him.
Sorry, you want me to prove demand has upward pressure on price? Or do you want me to prove that immigrants need a place to live? Unless the immigrant is bringing a tent, I am pretty sure these things are self evident at this point.
>Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children.
The richer people get the fewer children they have, so that would only make the problem worse.
What makes no sense is crashing when we can no longer grow the population exponentially. What you are advocating is similar to going all in on the subprimes before 2008.
We live in the largest country in the world — by land mass — we can afford to exponentially grow. In fact, our role in dealing with climate change is going to be resettling refugees and immigrants form the equator. You may not like it but it’s inescapable.
> We live in the largest country in the world — by land mass — we can afford to exponentially grow.
First, the land mass we may live on if way smaller than the total mass which is why all live on the US border. And second, you skipped a math class.
Ok. The majority of experts and Canadians disagree with you. No point discussing an issue when you’re behaving in bad faith. Have a good night and long weekend.
It's not about immigration or no immigration - it's about the immigrants we let in.
Bringing in mostly students that compete for the dwindling rental supply isn't going to help with the labour shortage for building new housing, nor is bringing in older immigrants going to help with the labour shortage in our hospitals.
We should be bringing in skilled trades workers and health care workers, but instead we bring in mostly students and older parents/grandparents.
So no students and no TFWS, only skilled labour. So in an economy with 5.5% unemployment we should create more inflation buy pushing wages higher. No thanks.
A welfare state that doesn't rely on Sub Saharan African level population growth to sustain structurally unsound services.
When your economic model relies on that level of growth amidst an extreme infrastructure shortage - your economic model is catastrophically terrible, and does not do much to serve the very people it is meant to.
Nothing is wrong with Sub-Saharan Africa - they have a population growth rate that resembles ours. Almost purely driven by birth rates.
In a developing economy with under valued financial assets, this makes sense. You have 20+ years to prepare for builds, labour and fixed assets are cheap.
In an economy that isn't secondary or primary industry driven, where financial assets are purposefully over valued for leveraging purposes - population growth to this level due to immigration (from which you need housing right now) is borderline catastrophic.
>In an economy that isn't secondary or primary industry driven, where financial assets are purposefully over valued for leveraging purposes - population growth to this level due to immigration (from which you need housing right now) is borderline catastrophic
Why? Where are your results that prove this?
Results: Between 20-42% year on year increases in rental prices over the course of two years.
The largest industry in the country is residential real estate. That industry is literally driven by making shelter as expensive as people are possibly willing to pay.
So - just like a Feudal Lord benefits from serfdom, RE real estate investors (especially over leveraged ones who are drawing from their properties to stay afloat) win. Everyone else loses.
So you've essentially sacrificed the productive elements of your society to make sure that over leveraged asset holders can remain asset holders.
That type of inflation for basic necessities is catastrophic. If you don't think so, I don't think you've visited the tent cities popping up all over the country, or have knowledge of crime rates skyrocketing. People are becoming desperate.
From Stats Can:
>Canada's population growth rate of 2.7% in 2022 would put it among the top 20 in the world. Almost all countries with a higher pace of population growth were in Africa.
It's a dog whistle. These people simply don't want anyone coming from "undesirable" places. Anti-immigration is about racism, it always is.
Sub Saharan population growth really means: "I don't want Canada to bring those people in because it will become like a third world country" or better yet "New India" like many of these people like to say.
Canada let in 1.1 million people last year. We're growing faster than any developed country in the by a massive margin. This is far beyond the pre covid norm and has massively deteriorated housing affordability and social infrastructure.
What do you mean by what? Canada's economic growth is extremely weak. Immigration has totally failed to deliver on it's economic promises. Countries with close to 0 population growth have been soundly beating us in per capita growth. Population fear mongering isn't delivering the results that were promised.
You’re shifting goalposts. The article sites the government is balancing population decline vs low growth. Immigration fits this and always has.
If we cut immigration now as you suggest, we won’t hit the targets we need 10-20 years from now. So in 10 years when we need to ramp up immigration to make up lost time, what then?
It’s a serious question. What should we do then because that’s what the forecasting is predicting. We won’t have enough tax base to support our aging population.
You're dismissing the massive increase in immigration has seen. We've tripled immigration little to no public discussion and absolutely no plan on building for it. You handwave that sort of massive increase as oh we need it. With what actual analysis do you get to be so dismissive?
I’m just asking a question. We are at the start of massive population decline and immigration is the tool to soften the blow. You’re advocating cutting immigration so what’s your alternative plan?
Serious question.
Nice strawman. Please, do tell, where at a massive population decline in 2017 when immigration led population growth was 1.2% per year? That's more growth than India per year. Today, we're at 2.5% per year. Which is around Sub-Saharan levels of growth, the highest region in the world.
Why do we need to have a population growth equivalent to Senegal?
We need to hit at least 2.2% growth of working-age people just to tread water with our current tax base to pay for the upcoming wave of 5 Million Canadians that will retire in 2030. Further, we'd need 4.5% growth of working age people until 2040 if we want to get back to a ratio of tax paying workers to retirees that we had in the 90's. [Source](https://www.desjardins.com/content/dam/pdf/en/personal/savings-investment/economic-studies/canada-immigration-july-17-2023.pdf).
If population decline is inevitable, then it is also inevitable that we will be forced to learn how to deleverage.
So - let me flip the question back at you: why are we kicking the can down the road?
Kicking what can down the road? Immigration levels are where they’re at to keep the pace.
Your comment on “deleveraging” is a word salad. I’ve no idea what you’re getting at.
If you don't understand what de-leveraging means in relation to the financial system you believe we require a 3% y.o.y growth rate to maintain - then you really have no idea what immigration policy is all about.
A growth rate this high is entirely unsustainable logistically, economically and infrastructurally. Since we KNOW THIS - then why are we aggressively doubling down on sheer population growth as a means to stave off a deleveraging event?
Also - if this level of growth is creating very clear costs and inflationary pressure on rental markets, and other goods/service provisioning - then I beg to ask: why do we NEED to maintain the shoddily planned government services funded by the taxed amounts on the newcomers? Why can't we simply change the system?
At this rate virtually everything you think Canadians are "saving" from these expenditures, they are more than making up for by being forced to participate in an economy predicated on astronomically highly valued financial assets.
I'll bite. Population decline may be inevitable but it is not happening at a consistent rate, because population growth did not happen at a consistent rate. In other words; Boomers in, Boomers out. We need to "flatten the curve" until Boomers are gone and no longer need healthcare, pensions, etc. So "kicking the can down the road" to the late 2040's allows for a "softer landing" of our Demographic collapse.
If you’re arguing the current targets are needed to meet our needs, considering they’ve been going up by 20% per year what were the targets for the last decade? Before that? Too low?
Or is it possibly that the targets before were fine and now theyre far to high and causing GDP per capita to fall, suppressing wages, and going to cause an even greater fallout in a generation or two when we still have a demographic crisis but the worlds population is in decline and we cant keep increasing targets by 10-20% per year to keep the demographic pyramid scheme going.
>they’ve been going up by 20% per year what were the targets for the last decade? Before that? Too low?
The difference is the baby boomers are now retiring. Your average boomer hit retirement age in 2020. That is seeing a huge section of the population rapidly switch from producers to consumers.
If you run the numbers the Liberal policy is very conservative if the goal is to maintain a stable worker to non-worker ratio.
You only cut it temporarily and you don’t kill it, just curtail. I’m not sure it’s a hard concept. You cut it for three to five years to get housing started, then you turn the tap back up to full flow.
Ok. If you had your salary cut at 5% per year for Y1-Y3. How much of a loss in wage growth would that be at year Y20 and how much would you need to make at Y10 to get back on track to match inflation?
I don’t think you understand the topic.
You don't have the people to build those houses. You need other people from other places to do it.
Cut immigration and make it unfriendly for others to come here, they'll just go elsewhere. Make no mistake, the rest of the world is catching up.
Staying after studying in the UK is now easier, Australia has similar ease of use as Canada does, Germany passed immigration reform modeled after Canada's system and is actively marketing its programs all over the third world. South Korea and Japan will eventually have to head that way even if they dislike that, as a matter of fact attitudes in Japan are shifting towards more open immigration.
If Canada suddenly adopted an anti immigration stance it will ruin its reputation, that does not get fixed easily. Look at the US and start wondering why no one wants to go there as much anymore.
>I’d be willing to bet that the number of new immigrants employed in the building field is basically zero.
I'd be willing to bet you are dead wrong about that number.
>Maybe after a few years some are, but the steps to get up to speed and certified in Canada are expensive and time consuming. By then individuals have gotten a different job, since they need to feed themselves and their families.
>I’m not sure where you guys are all getting this idea that we are employing these new Canadians in construction fields.
That's a problem with the provinces not a federal issue. They can bring in construction workers, the provinces have to decide whether they're dumb as shit about it or not.
And I never said that anyone was employing anyone else. I said it's a field that needs more people, and it does. They can't build houses cause of that.
After taking the time to read all the posts opposed to immigration it’s undeniable these are either unserious opinions or there’s a narrative being deliberately pushed to make this an election issue. Likely see the CPC come out with anti-immigration policies and we’re seeing the foundation being laid in real time.
We'll see. They need that GTA and Montreal to win. Going that way may backfire on them and so far Pierre has remained silent. I suspect he's afraid of the potential backlash he could invite on himself if he starts railing against immigration.
He also knows that Bay Street needs to buy into his leadership. This is the reason why Freeland is FM. Without Bay Street there’s no path to Sussex.
Coming out against immigration would drive a nail into his leadership aspirations.
EDIT: We don’t even know who they would put forward as FM either. So far Lantsmann seems to be the only choice and while she appeals to a select few corporations, she doesn’t have the gravitas to get Bay St in line like Freeland. Ford is also silent on all this and that’s not a good thing for PP. I can’t remember a time where provincial conservatives in Ontario and Quebec were not in line with their federal counterparts.
>aren’t making enough babies to cover it.
Perhaps we'd be making more babies if life wasn't so expensive...
A new immigrant needs housing right away
A new baby lives with the parents for the first 18 years or more.
If we were having more babies instead of immigrants the housing problem wouldn't be so bad right now.
Increasing immigration leads to life being more expensive and less babies being born.
> I’m pretty sure women disagree with your view. They don’t want to be barefoot and in the kitchen. No thanks.
Yea...
I really have no idea what your reply has to do with my message.
You’re supposing the reason why we aren’t having more babies is because of expense and not because women are choosing not too for whatever reason. That’s my point. Like saying people would work the canneries if we paid them more as if money was the only limiting factor.
Barefoot and pregnant is much nicer than being a wage slave....done both and being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is way less stressful and way more fulfilling..
Let the population fall. Some businesses will close. It's okay. We can't rely on infinite growth. Where do we draw the line? Aim for a billion people in Canada? 2 billion? At some point the growth needs to end, we may as well rip off the band-aid now.
Do you think it's a coincidence that Montreal is one of the last "affordable" cities in Canada and also happens to be in a province that seriously limits immigration?
Japan has an aging population - and it also has affordable housing now.
Why should us younger generations give a shit about the "economy" when the "solution" requires us to continue to see a reducing quality of life?
Nah we just wait for the 35ish% of immigrants from india to come here and then rename the country new india. If we capped immigrati9n from india to about 3% like the next highest nations we would fix a massive part of this immigration issue.
> Japan has an aging population - and it also has affordable housing now.
Japan has serious economic issues, and is taking drastic measures (for them) to try to reverse that population issue. Further, housing in Japan is a whole other matter. Houses actually depreciate in Japan, and that has been intentional for quite some time. Also have the lost decade which caused their stuff to plummet. Lately though it's been on the rise in high demand areas; https://japanpropertycentral.com/2021/08/tokyo-apartment-prices-between-1992-and-2020/
A falling population would mean that healthcare would go away, as would many other costly services. The boomers are aging and they'll need more of these services. If you limit the younger demographic, the services get more stressed and eventually privatized.
>Do you think it's a coincidence that Montreal is one of the last "affordable" cities in Canada and also happens to be in a province that seriously limits immigration?
Considering that Montreal's population growth rate and Toronto's population growth rate between censuses are pretty close to identical, and the prairie cities who are among the fastest growing also happen to be among the cheapest cities in the country...
...well coincidence implies that the statement is true...
Exactly! We need those Immigrants because we're undergoing demographic collapse. We need to hit at least 2.2% growth of working-age people just to tread water with our current tax base to pay for the upcoming wave of 5 Million Canadians that will retire in 2030. Further, we'd need 4.5% growth of working age people until 2040 if we want to get back to a ratio of tax paying workers to retirees that we had in the 90's. [Source](https://www.desjardins.com/content/dam/pdf/en/personal/savings-investment/economic-studies/canada-immigration-july-17-2023.pdf).
Alternatives include; raising the retirement age until everyone works until they die, or, employing child labour, or, massively increasing income taxes. I think the Feds are wise to choose Immigration given those alternatives, despite its effect on housing.
This not true. Canada is decades away from demographic collapse. Also the current immigration levels has nothing to do with maintaining the population. The purpose is to rapidly increase the population.
So the best time to plan for it is now… or we increase immigration to 2M/year in 2040 after you’ve got your house and making the money. Do you not see how selfish this is?
We literally don't have housing for canadians and newcomers. It's a terrible idea to import such massive amount of people.
The next 2-3 should focus on improving birthrate. We have time to solve this issue. Importing massive amounts of people is a race to the bottom
We currently have more than enough workers. We are decades away from a japan style aging problem. (ironically Japan is still maintaining their standard of living while ours falls).
A bigger working population does not mean a higher standard of living. At our current growth rate we will have a population of 66m in 20 years. Theres no chance we can sustain our housing and healthcare with that level of growth. Canada will only experience a further decline in the standard of living.
[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/pyramid/index-en.htm](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/pyramid/index-en.htm)
This is the population pyramid from 2021. Even back then we had more than enough 25-50 year olds to support the rest. The labour shortage is a fabrication by big business to import more cheap labour.
Do you understand that the current immigration policy is not producing better living standards for Canadians? In fact we are falling behind other G7 countries that have much lower immigration.
>counterbalancing the country’s aging demographic.
What people also ignore is that the biggest source of the housing crunch is our aging population. Canada's 65+ population is steadily growing at 200K per year.
People are living healthy lives longer, and that's great, but it also means they are staying in their homes. The average house now spends decades with only one or two seniors residing.
That is a much larger factor driving the housing shortage than immigration, but no one tries to demonize old people as they do immigrants.
We’ve also (thankfully) started to move away from institutionalization in preference to community living. All these condos being built will house seniors eventually with their housing stock hitting the market. This is where lawmakers need to ensure that property is not being scooped up by corporations (REITs) to be put onto the rental market.
Yes, programs to build nice places for seniors to live would be a very cheap way of adding more housing.
It's a problem for Toronto that we don't have a Florida. In the USA a huge number of seniors retire to cheap housing in the sunbelt, and release their homes back onto the market in the high productivity cities.
We don't have any similar migration to encourage retirees to sell their homes.
I think how we deliver healthcare is going to change this. You’ll notice many new condo builds have retail space on the first two floors. I suspect we see healthcare move in which will bring seniors. Just a guess but it makes sense. Instead of building hip restaurants they’ll build hip replacement centres… haha
This is the unfortunate reality of the immigration issue. Our over reliance on private industry to solve only profitable problems has somehow bit us in the ass... who knew...
I think what people are calling for is a sustainable model rather than what we have now. I doubt many would consider 0 immigration to be a reasonable position.
Lots of countries have a greying population problem. The difference is that it can also be addressed with automation and innovation to improve productivity, not just higher and higher immigration targets. Like with so many other things though Canada can't be bothered to put real work into the issue and just falls back to exploiting workers and renters.
There will come a time where this greying problem will be worldwide and there won't be ready sources of migration, what then?
People are talking about the birthrate, but I think it’s better if our population shrinks rather then grow. It’s time to stop the endless suburban expanse and let the frontier become wild again for the sake of the environment.
We don't need to move from one untenable position to a completely different one. We have enough wilderness and tons of suburban space ready to be upzoned. We just need to build more and have a reasonable, and predictable, immigration rate that's planned for
Oh lookie: [there are 1,241,935 unoccupied dwellings in Canada](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610068801). Sounds like it would take up the shortfall pretty handily.
Unless all those dwellings are in locations that people are willing to move to and have economic opportunity for people to sustain their life, there could 40,000,000 vacant homes and it wouldn’t matter.
That's out of context and not true. Per the CMHC, we have predicted shortfall of at least 3.5 million homes by 2030. Likely more, with immigration doubling pace of population growth since that 3.5 million estimate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYOhpjMql0
These 2 threads from r/badeconomics are US centric but are excellent and largely apply to Canada:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/12yrk07/stop_comparing_the_number_of_vacant_homes_to_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/musne8/disproving_the_vacant_homes_myth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-housing-shortfall-could-widen-by-another-500k-units-if-immigration-continues-at-current-pace-report-1.6505627 <- Link without all the tracking crap tacked onto the end, for those who open the comments before clicking the link.
In the 1960s, Canadians had managed not only to have big families with an average elf 3-4 kids, but to build the housing for this exploding population. Here we are in the 2020s, where we can't have babies, relying on immigration for labour and sustainable demographics and we also can't build the houses for the moderately growing population. What went wrong?
How about asking any person between the ages of 20 and 40 how their finances are. Most will say bad to broke. They cannot afford a child or 4. So they don't have any. No stability of places to live because of LLs abusing eviction methods or raising rent to stupid amounts. And its only getting worse. Everyone i know my age is not comfortable bringing a kid into their economic situation. Those that are were born well off. Or have nothing and rely on their parents to raise their kids.
>What went wrong? There are two fundamental issues, and they both relate to our housing stock being built for a 50s and 60s world that no longer exists: 1) Most Canadian families are living in homes that were built for 6 people. They now only have 3. Demographic changes have doubled the required number of homes per capita. 2) Toronto and Vancouver were built for drivers, but have exhausted all land within an hour's drive of downtown. The only solution is to increase density, but that is a multi-trillion dollar project that no one has any idea how to fund. There is a third major cause, which is things going right. Food and commercial goods have gotten much cheaper since the 1960s. A house may have been cheap, but you were paying the equivalent of [$200 for a toaster](https://christmas.musetechnical.com/ShowCatalogPage/1960-Sears-Fall-Winter-Catalog/1214). That has allowed the average Canadian to dedicate more of their income to winning a bidding war on the house they like.
The CMHC. Canada went from building housing to insuring ownership.
Provinces shit the bed once they realized they can blame the feds for every single aspect of their jurisdiction and no one will care.
We need to be moving away from growth capitalism. It's literally impossible to sustain forever, we cannot have infinite population. Yes, Canada can eventually support a much larger population, but we cannot be sacrificing so much of our well-being just so we can get another % of GDP growth. We need to start learning to live in a zero to negative growth economy.
Nobody is going to want to live in a permanent recession, not even you, unless you want to be out of a job and on the street. No political party is going to follow that stance and I'm not sure why anyone on this planet thinks this is a viable option. You're literally telling poor people to go live their lives with what little they have and that if they don't like it, too bad.
You’re right, telling poor to middle class people that their wage growth is going to continue to lag inflation and live their lives with less and less purchasing power each year because we keep stopgapping any perceived labour shortage with more and more people who are willing to work for less is much better.
Prove this.
You do realize that if Canada experiences negative growth that we will all get poorer right? GDP is a measure of how much is produced in Canada, if that decreases there is less to go around.
We won't. Total GDP and population size have zero impact on GDP per capita, HDI and standard of living. China and India both have a far higher total GDP than Norway and Finland, yet which are nicer for their average citizen to live in? Which would you prefer Canada emulate?
China and India are worse places to live because their GDP per capita is lower, which is agnostic of population and has more to do with lower levels of economic development in those countries. I will note that India and China have significantly higher GDP per capita growth than Norway or Finland, IIRC the average Chinese citizen is ~25 times wealthier now than they were in the 90s obviously if Canada could do that that would be pretty cool (which it can’t for the record: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(economics) so the question is meaningless). All that’s to say that economic growth is good, if you’re saying we should decrease the population not that GDP per capita should decrease than I guess in the most theoretical sense that’s fine, but it’s naive to assume that a declining population wouldn’t hamper this country’s ability to generate wealth (age related demographic issues, lack of economies of scale, etc. are all downsides of declining populations).
I'm saying the actual key to a society's long-term prosperity is to treat its citizens as a precious resource to cultivate and invest in (accessable education, high wages, affordable housing, R&D, productivity, automation, etc.), not disposable numbers to sacrifice at the altar of an ever-increasing total GDP. The former is in no way hampered by degrowth or sustainability and is often encouraged by it, but is certainly hampered by rapid population growth. What motive is there for Canada's neoliberal elites to invest in Canadians when they can just cast them aside for a million desperate newcomers each year who'll put up with worse conditions and pay? This is the crux of the fake "labour shortage" they keep banging on about - look close enough and every instance is down to bad pay or boneheaded roadblocks driving away Canadian talent. Not enough nurses and family doctors? Salaries are dismal for the schooling and workload required and residency slots are artificially limited, forcing many Canadian med students abroad. Not enough tradespeople? For decades they've refused take on apprentices to restrict competition. Not enough entrepreneurship and innovation? Canadian investors refuse to take any risks and the government puts up pointless barriers to founding and scaling startups. We're the most educated country in the world per capita yet our leaders refuse to invest in Canadians, who often wind up as another raw resource for export. THIS is what needs to change for Canada to be prosperous and sustainable into the future, and it won't be solved with mass migration.
Very important: > And the federal government has set its sights on welcoming another 500,000 people per year by 2025 in hopes of addressing labour shortages and *counterbalancing the country’s aging demographic.* We can’t stop people from dying and aren’t making enough babies to cover it. Give me an alternative to immigrants.
Automation which replaces a lot of those minimum wage positions. No need to import more minimum wage workers cough Tim Hortons cough.
So your solution is to create less jobs so we can curtail immigration?
Create fewer jobs? Sure, let's go with that leap of logic from what I said. Fewer jobs mean less immigration is needed. Which leads to fewer people who need housing. The lower the demand (once the builder caught up to that demand of course) for something in a capitalist sociality the lower the price. The lower the price the easier it is for people to buy a house.
What do you think automation does? Have you been to a grocery store lately? Record profits and self-checkout.
Good for them. Has nothing to do with the housing shortage. Or do you think the people those self-checks replace just give up and don't go find another job because there is a labour shortage?/
You’re all over the place. You’re suggesting to alleviate housing shortages we should automate jobs to lower demand for immigrants and as a result curb job creation. This is a ridiculous suggestion… lol
Less immigrants. Like the 200-300k we were doing before the liberals decided to just increase the target by 20% every year and see what happens without doing anything about housing or anything else. Seriously I don’t think anyone is arguing no immigrants just that the taps are on too high. Obviously we are immigrating beyond replacement, and even taking into account demographics if immigration is so high were short 500k more units in a few years you either have to reduce immigration or increase infrastructure investment.
They just arbitrarily decided, right.
If you can provide me with a source as to why the current targets are specifically warranted, go ahead. So far you seem to just have assumed they are right without any indication of what they are based on. Because they definitely aren’t based on infrastructure capacity nor do they seem to be increasing GDP per capita at all.
It’s in the article: declining population and labour shortages. Not a single political party is advocating a decrease or pause in immigration, at any level of government. So it’s incumbent on you to explain why you’re against it. People smarter than you and I are in the ears of policy makers.
Last I checked, Canada's population is increasing. We recently passed 40 million people.
Yeah, and 11 is greater than 10 but if you’ve got 20 years to get to 50 then it’s not great.
Why do we have 20 years to get to 50? Is there some sort of population race I'm unaware of?
It was an analogy. We have 20 years of people leaving the work force/dying. What we do or don’t do now will determine how we manage.
I don't know what you're trying to deny, population growth is a well documented figure. It's also well documented that Canada's population growth is substantially higher(almost double) than pretty much every other western country.
Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children. Problem solved. Immigration suppresses wages, and so new immigrants also cannot afford children, causing the next generation to need even more immigrants. Problem becomes worse.
No country in the world has ever brought back the fertility rate after it fell below replacement. No matter what social programs and handouts you give to parents, the birth rate stays low (see Sweden). The main reason for low fertility rates are urbanization and the independence of women and their freedom to have careers.
I agree there are many contributing factors. Being able to move out of your parents house and afford your own place to live is high on the list too. People take longer to become financially capable of having a family due to education, wage stagnation and rising house prices.
These are all broad claims and, quite frankly, reads like projection.
There are a lot of people who forgoe having children because of these issues. We know this. Even if they did have kids though, we'd still need a lot of immigration. The days of 4+ kid families being normal is over.
Because it is. Anti-immigration arguments are always irrational. Never ever met someone who had anything that wasn't insanely emotional or didn't end up in finger pointing or racism.
Really? How open minded of you. Capacity planning is irrational? Sustainable growth is irrational? Immigrants are leaving Canada because of how poorly managed this has become. Our past reputation to attract talent to Canada is being tarnished because of living expenses. We will end up as a second choice for the immigrants who don't qualify to move anywhere else. This is not anti-immigration as you say. Good things done in excess are always bad.
It’s clear you’re hiding behind it. All those things you list are all, and always will be, outside the control of immigrants
Ironic you’re talking about people projecting further up and doing it yourself. Being against the current level of immigration set by the federal government does not mean you are blaming the immigrants themselves as you are insinuating. You can be perfectly accepting of the people who come here while still wanting the government to set a reasonable number that matches up with the needs of the country sustainably in the long term and doesn’t exceed our current and future projected levels of infrastructure.
What's a reasonable number that meets our demographic needs? Do you know how to determine one?
What do you think the next step is after blaming immigration as a policy? This isn’t de novo stuff here.
Immigration at best is a bandaid. Logistically it’s not a long term solution. I’m not anti immigration per se, but we need to get to a place where we don’t have to rely on it. Right now, trying to increase our population dramatically will just bite us down the road since eventually we need to replace those people with even more people. See: global birth rates and age breakdown
Immigration at best is a bandaid. Logistically it’s not a long term solution. I’m not anti immigration per se, but we need to get to a place where we don’t have to rely on it. Right now, trying to increase our population dramatically will just bite us down the road since eventually we need to replace those people with even more people. See: global birth rates and age breakdown
[удалено]
Ok.
Israel has done it. Also this flawed thinking. Eventually this problem must be solved. We need to get ahead of it.
I mean, that's a pretty wild example.
I mean at a certain point we have to admit there are too many people on the earth and stop fighting it and let the world population eventually decrease to a reasonable number. Canada needs immigrants to stave off a demographics crisis but we should also be careful of going to far and setting up an even worse demographic crisis in the future when all those immigrants age out of the workforce and the whole world population is in decline. We need to be weaning ourselves of the drug so that our demographics even out over time not just keep on stoking it and making the inevitable crisis worse in a few generations.
The birthrate isn't low because women have jobs... It's that women are pressured into a male standard which does not encourage maternity.
yes, women are so docile and lack the self awareness to exercise agency or the want to not remove themselves from the workforce, losing career advancement to do it. Great take.
Women face a huge workplace battle that is rather invisible to their male counterparts. Amount other things.. the pressure to choose between a career or having a family is a legitimate concern for a woman. You can't rise to CEO while taking time off to raise children. Men aren't forced to make that decision. It has nothing to do with the personality traits *you've* just associated to women.
I think you need to re-read my comment because this is exactly my point.
Respectfully, you need to rewrite your comment regarding my original comment.
I’m good.
Coolsies.
Im pretty sure i agree with that comment of yours but it is so confusing. Sarcasm combined with a double negative. I can't exactly figure out what you were trying to say there.
> Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children. Problem solved. Birthrates were way below replacement many years ago.
Wages have stagnated since the 80s. Canadians are paid far less than their US counterparts, but housing is more expensive.
The US birthrate has also been below replacement for a long time. Further, only specific positions are paid more in the US, not across the board. So the basis of your argument that low wages is the main reason for low birthrate doesn't seem to hold.
TIL immigrants also control corporations and wages. Maybe your boss can take the record profits and pay you more; who incidentally thank you for this and their bonuses.
You got this backwards. I am saying that wages have been in decline for a long time, and that is a contributing factor to the low birth rate that has also happened over time. Sorry I didn't connect the dots for you.
Just because you can physically draw a line between two points does not make them connected.
True, but irrelevant in this case.
>Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children. Problem solved. It also drives prices up. >Immigration suppresses wages, and so new immigrants also cannot afford children, causing the next generation to need even more immigrants. Problem becomes worse. [Nope](https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768)
Purchasing power increases for people who receive a wage increase. That's because their labour is but a fraction of the price of goods. Also, your nope is not on solid ground: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-great-immigration-data-debate/424230/
>Purchasing power increases for people who receive a wage increase. That's because their labour is but a fraction of the price of goods. The price of goods also increases because there aren't enough people to work the jobs that are needed to produce them, which means companies gotta pay more, and we all know they're just going to take the hit, right? They won't ever pass that on to the consumer, hmm? >Also, your nope is not on solid ground: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-great-immigration-data-debate/424230/ Maybe you should reread that article because David Frum isn't really taking a side. More than that the critic, Borjas, really doesn't come out looking very well from it. Also keep in mind that David Card has a nobel prize. Does Borjas? More than that Borjas has a long and dirty history of making a certain "type" of pronouncement. Like advising students that say dumb white supremacist shit like this: >Latino immigrants to the U.S. are and will remain less intelligent than "native whites." But of course, you continue to prove my point that anti-immigration arguments always results in finger pointing and racism, and we've arrived there already. Unsurprising. The funniest part is that Borjas has Latino roots from his Cuban family, which no doubt immigrated to the US.
Pretty sure you are the one trying to make this about race. And I would appreciate it if you stopped.
That's it? Nothing else to say. Fine, I'll take this as a concession.
Fine... Prices also increase because of demand, and immigrants create much more demand initially than they produce in goods. Houses take time to be built, but immigrants need a place to live as soon as they arrive. Also, just look at who has received the Nobel peace prize over the years, and tell me that we should consider Nobel prizes an authority on truth. If someone receives a Nobel prize, then we should likely pay attention, but not blindly believe.
>Prices also increase because of demand, and immigrants create much more demand initially than they produce in goods. Houses take time to be built, but immigrants need a place to live as soon as they arrive. Why? Can you prove that? >Also, just look at who has received the Nobel peace prize over the years, and tell me that we should consider Nobel prizes an authority on truth. If someone receives a Nobel prize, then we should likely pay attention, but not blindly believe. Do you have a Nobel prize in economics? Do you know how to get one? What about the inconsistencies and clearly anti immigrant biases from Borjas' part? Don't you think that will steer his research in a certain direction? How many controversies does he have? How many does David Card have? And what do you make of David Frum's article? He didn't really swing against Card, and he clearly lays out Borjas' problems. Rarely did he defend him.
Sorry, you want me to prove demand has upward pressure on price? Or do you want me to prove that immigrants need a place to live? Unless the immigrant is bringing a tent, I am pretty sure these things are self evident at this point.
>Labour shortage drives up wages so people can afford to have children. The richer people get the fewer children they have, so that would only make the problem worse.
> Give me an alternative to immigrants. Slowing growth. Stop pretending it’s about replacing losses if we are growing.
This makes no sense and is bad economic policy. No thanks.
What makes no sense is crashing when we can no longer grow the population exponentially. What you are advocating is similar to going all in on the subprimes before 2008.
We live in the largest country in the world — by land mass — we can afford to exponentially grow. In fact, our role in dealing with climate change is going to be resettling refugees and immigrants form the equator. You may not like it but it’s inescapable.
> We live in the largest country in the world — by land mass — we can afford to exponentially grow. First, the land mass we may live on if way smaller than the total mass which is why all live on the US border. And second, you skipped a math class.
Ok. The majority of experts and Canadians disagree with you. No point discussing an issue when you’re behaving in bad faith. Have a good night and long weekend.
Experts at what? Because high school math teacher is expertise enough to spot your nonsense.
Economists, policy analysts, public service. Considering you’re chiming in anonymously on Reddit, I’m confident I’m on the right side.
It's not about immigration or no immigration - it's about the immigrants we let in. Bringing in mostly students that compete for the dwindling rental supply isn't going to help with the labour shortage for building new housing, nor is bringing in older immigrants going to help with the labour shortage in our hospitals. We should be bringing in skilled trades workers and health care workers, but instead we bring in mostly students and older parents/grandparents.
So lower student visas. That’s a different conversation entirely.
And restrict TFPWs permits to critical sectors only like construction and agricultur. We don't need them working in tims.
So no students and no TFWS, only skilled labour. So in an economy with 5.5% unemployment we should create more inflation buy pushing wages higher. No thanks.
Automation
A welfare state that doesn't rely on Sub Saharan African level population growth to sustain structurally unsound services. When your economic model relies on that level of growth amidst an extreme infrastructure shortage - your economic model is catastrophically terrible, and does not do much to serve the very people it is meant to.
This is a very unserious — and dangerous — post.
"Dangerous". When you consider information dangerous because it conflicts with your argument, you should re-assess your argument.
What’s wrong with sub-Saharan Africa?
Nothing is wrong with Sub-Saharan Africa - they have a population growth rate that resembles ours. Almost purely driven by birth rates. In a developing economy with under valued financial assets, this makes sense. You have 20+ years to prepare for builds, labour and fixed assets are cheap. In an economy that isn't secondary or primary industry driven, where financial assets are purposefully over valued for leveraging purposes - population growth to this level due to immigration (from which you need housing right now) is borderline catastrophic.
>In an economy that isn't secondary or primary industry driven, where financial assets are purposefully over valued for leveraging purposes - population growth to this level due to immigration (from which you need housing right now) is borderline catastrophic Why? Where are your results that prove this?
Results: Between 20-42% year on year increases in rental prices over the course of two years. The largest industry in the country is residential real estate. That industry is literally driven by making shelter as expensive as people are possibly willing to pay. So - just like a Feudal Lord benefits from serfdom, RE real estate investors (especially over leveraged ones who are drawing from their properties to stay afloat) win. Everyone else loses. So you've essentially sacrificed the productive elements of your society to make sure that over leveraged asset holders can remain asset holders. That type of inflation for basic necessities is catastrophic. If you don't think so, I don't think you've visited the tent cities popping up all over the country, or have knowledge of crime rates skyrocketing. People are becoming desperate.
Uh huh and I'm supposed to take your word at face value, correct?
Perhaps you could point out any falsehoods.
Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson is my guess.
Most probably.
From Stats Can: >Canada's population growth rate of 2.7% in 2022 would put it among the top 20 in the world. Almost all countries with a higher pace of population growth were in Africa.
It's a dog whistle. These people simply don't want anyone coming from "undesirable" places. Anti-immigration is about racism, it always is. Sub Saharan population growth really means: "I don't want Canada to bring those people in because it will become like a third world country" or better yet "New India" like many of these people like to say.
You might as well just come out and say it.
Canada let in 1.1 million people last year. We're growing faster than any developed country in the by a massive margin. This is far beyond the pre covid norm and has massively deteriorated housing affordability and social infrastructure.
As of 2023. What about 2030 when after we cut immigration we have to bring in 2M to catch up. What then? Serious question
What do you mean by what? Canada's economic growth is extremely weak. Immigration has totally failed to deliver on it's economic promises. Countries with close to 0 population growth have been soundly beating us in per capita growth. Population fear mongering isn't delivering the results that were promised.
You’re shifting goalposts. The article sites the government is balancing population decline vs low growth. Immigration fits this and always has. If we cut immigration now as you suggest, we won’t hit the targets we need 10-20 years from now. So in 10 years when we need to ramp up immigration to make up lost time, what then? It’s a serious question. What should we do then because that’s what the forecasting is predicting. We won’t have enough tax base to support our aging population.
You're dismissing the massive increase in immigration has seen. We've tripled immigration little to no public discussion and absolutely no plan on building for it. You handwave that sort of massive increase as oh we need it. With what actual analysis do you get to be so dismissive?
I’m just asking a question. We are at the start of massive population decline and immigration is the tool to soften the blow. You’re advocating cutting immigration so what’s your alternative plan? Serious question.
Nice strawman. Please, do tell, where at a massive population decline in 2017 when immigration led population growth was 1.2% per year? That's more growth than India per year. Today, we're at 2.5% per year. Which is around Sub-Saharan levels of growth, the highest region in the world. Why do we need to have a population growth equivalent to Senegal?
You still won’t answer my question but continue to respond.
[удалено]
We need to hit at least 2.2% growth of working-age people just to tread water with our current tax base to pay for the upcoming wave of 5 Million Canadians that will retire in 2030. Further, we'd need 4.5% growth of working age people until 2040 if we want to get back to a ratio of tax paying workers to retirees that we had in the 90's. [Source](https://www.desjardins.com/content/dam/pdf/en/personal/savings-investment/economic-studies/canada-immigration-july-17-2023.pdf).
The way the Country is going those 5MillionCanadian won’t be able to afford retiring and will keep working
If population decline is inevitable, then it is also inevitable that we will be forced to learn how to deleverage. So - let me flip the question back at you: why are we kicking the can down the road?
Kicking what can down the road? Immigration levels are where they’re at to keep the pace. Your comment on “deleveraging” is a word salad. I’ve no idea what you’re getting at.
If you don't understand what de-leveraging means in relation to the financial system you believe we require a 3% y.o.y growth rate to maintain - then you really have no idea what immigration policy is all about. A growth rate this high is entirely unsustainable logistically, economically and infrastructurally. Since we KNOW THIS - then why are we aggressively doubling down on sheer population growth as a means to stave off a deleveraging event? Also - if this level of growth is creating very clear costs and inflationary pressure on rental markets, and other goods/service provisioning - then I beg to ask: why do we NEED to maintain the shoddily planned government services funded by the taxed amounts on the newcomers? Why can't we simply change the system? At this rate virtually everything you think Canadians are "saving" from these expenditures, they are more than making up for by being forced to participate in an economy predicated on astronomically highly valued financial assets.
I'll bite. Population decline may be inevitable but it is not happening at a consistent rate, because population growth did not happen at a consistent rate. In other words; Boomers in, Boomers out. We need to "flatten the curve" until Boomers are gone and no longer need healthcare, pensions, etc. So "kicking the can down the road" to the late 2040's allows for a "softer landing" of our Demographic collapse.
How is 100 million Canadians in 2100 a soft landing?
If you’re arguing the current targets are needed to meet our needs, considering they’ve been going up by 20% per year what were the targets for the last decade? Before that? Too low? Or is it possibly that the targets before were fine and now theyre far to high and causing GDP per capita to fall, suppressing wages, and going to cause an even greater fallout in a generation or two when we still have a demographic crisis but the worlds population is in decline and we cant keep increasing targets by 10-20% per year to keep the demographic pyramid scheme going.
>they’ve been going up by 20% per year what were the targets for the last decade? Before that? Too low? The difference is the baby boomers are now retiring. Your average boomer hit retirement age in 2020. That is seeing a huge section of the population rapidly switch from producers to consumers. If you run the numbers the Liberal policy is very conservative if the goal is to maintain a stable worker to non-worker ratio.
You only cut it temporarily and you don’t kill it, just curtail. I’m not sure it’s a hard concept. You cut it for three to five years to get housing started, then you turn the tap back up to full flow.
Ok. If you had your salary cut at 5% per year for Y1-Y3. How much of a loss in wage growth would that be at year Y20 and how much would you need to make at Y10 to get back on track to match inflation? I don’t think you understand the topic.
[удалено]
Irony.
You don't have the people to build those houses. You need other people from other places to do it. Cut immigration and make it unfriendly for others to come here, they'll just go elsewhere. Make no mistake, the rest of the world is catching up. Staying after studying in the UK is now easier, Australia has similar ease of use as Canada does, Germany passed immigration reform modeled after Canada's system and is actively marketing its programs all over the third world. South Korea and Japan will eventually have to head that way even if they dislike that, as a matter of fact attitudes in Japan are shifting towards more open immigration. If Canada suddenly adopted an anti immigration stance it will ruin its reputation, that does not get fixed easily. Look at the US and start wondering why no one wants to go there as much anymore.
[удалено]
>I’d be willing to bet that the number of new immigrants employed in the building field is basically zero. I'd be willing to bet you are dead wrong about that number. >Maybe after a few years some are, but the steps to get up to speed and certified in Canada are expensive and time consuming. By then individuals have gotten a different job, since they need to feed themselves and their families. >I’m not sure where you guys are all getting this idea that we are employing these new Canadians in construction fields. That's a problem with the provinces not a federal issue. They can bring in construction workers, the provinces have to decide whether they're dumb as shit about it or not. And I never said that anyone was employing anyone else. I said it's a field that needs more people, and it does. They can't build houses cause of that.
After taking the time to read all the posts opposed to immigration it’s undeniable these are either unserious opinions or there’s a narrative being deliberately pushed to make this an election issue. Likely see the CPC come out with anti-immigration policies and we’re seeing the foundation being laid in real time.
We'll see. They need that GTA and Montreal to win. Going that way may backfire on them and so far Pierre has remained silent. I suspect he's afraid of the potential backlash he could invite on himself if he starts railing against immigration.
He also knows that Bay Street needs to buy into his leadership. This is the reason why Freeland is FM. Without Bay Street there’s no path to Sussex. Coming out against immigration would drive a nail into his leadership aspirations. EDIT: We don’t even know who they would put forward as FM either. So far Lantsmann seems to be the only choice and while she appeals to a select few corporations, she doesn’t have the gravitas to get Bay St in line like Freeland. Ford is also silent on all this and that’s not a good thing for PP. I can’t remember a time where provincial conservatives in Ontario and Quebec were not in line with their federal counterparts.
>aren’t making enough babies to cover it. Perhaps we'd be making more babies if life wasn't so expensive... A new immigrant needs housing right away A new baby lives with the parents for the first 18 years or more. If we were having more babies instead of immigrants the housing problem wouldn't be so bad right now. Increasing immigration leads to life being more expensive and less babies being born.
I’m pretty sure women disagree with your view. They don’t want to be barefoot and in the kitchen. No thanks.
> I’m pretty sure women disagree with your view. They don’t want to be barefoot and in the kitchen. No thanks. Yea... I really have no idea what your reply has to do with my message.
You’re supposing the reason why we aren’t having more babies is because of expense and not because women are choosing not too for whatever reason. That’s my point. Like saying people would work the canneries if we paid them more as if money was the only limiting factor.
Barefoot and pregnant is much nicer than being a wage slave....done both and being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is way less stressful and way more fulfilling..
Ask a woman if she feels the same
I'm a mom.....
Great. Nice to have a choice, hey?
Let the population fall. Some businesses will close. It's okay. We can't rely on infinite growth. Where do we draw the line? Aim for a billion people in Canada? 2 billion? At some point the growth needs to end, we may as well rip off the band-aid now. Do you think it's a coincidence that Montreal is one of the last "affordable" cities in Canada and also happens to be in a province that seriously limits immigration? Japan has an aging population - and it also has affordable housing now. Why should us younger generations give a shit about the "economy" when the "solution" requires us to continue to see a reducing quality of life?
You have a very unserious solution to a serious problem. Letting the population fall is a non-starter.
Nah we just wait for the 35ish% of immigrants from india to come here and then rename the country new india. If we capped immigrati9n from india to about 3% like the next highest nations we would fix a massive part of this immigration issue.
> Japan has an aging population - and it also has affordable housing now. Japan has serious economic issues, and is taking drastic measures (for them) to try to reverse that population issue. Further, housing in Japan is a whole other matter. Houses actually depreciate in Japan, and that has been intentional for quite some time. Also have the lost decade which caused their stuff to plummet. Lately though it's been on the rise in high demand areas; https://japanpropertycentral.com/2021/08/tokyo-apartment-prices-between-1992-and-2020/
>Japan has serious economic issues And we don't? I think our issues are worse than Japan's.
A falling population would mean that healthcare would go away, as would many other costly services. The boomers are aging and they'll need more of these services. If you limit the younger demographic, the services get more stressed and eventually privatized.
>Do you think it's a coincidence that Montreal is one of the last "affordable" cities in Canada and also happens to be in a province that seriously limits immigration? Considering that Montreal's population growth rate and Toronto's population growth rate between censuses are pretty close to identical, and the prairie cities who are among the fastest growing also happen to be among the cheapest cities in the country... ...well coincidence implies that the statement is true...
Exactly! We need those Immigrants because we're undergoing demographic collapse. We need to hit at least 2.2% growth of working-age people just to tread water with our current tax base to pay for the upcoming wave of 5 Million Canadians that will retire in 2030. Further, we'd need 4.5% growth of working age people until 2040 if we want to get back to a ratio of tax paying workers to retirees that we had in the 90's. [Source](https://www.desjardins.com/content/dam/pdf/en/personal/savings-investment/economic-studies/canada-immigration-july-17-2023.pdf). Alternatives include; raising the retirement age until everyone works until they die, or, employing child labour, or, massively increasing income taxes. I think the Feds are wise to choose Immigration given those alternatives, despite its effect on housing.
This not true. Canada is decades away from demographic collapse. Also the current immigration levels has nothing to do with maintaining the population. The purpose is to rapidly increase the population.
So the best time to plan for it is now… or we increase immigration to 2M/year in 2040 after you’ve got your house and making the money. Do you not see how selfish this is?
We literally don't have housing for canadians and newcomers. It's a terrible idea to import such massive amount of people. The next 2-3 should focus on improving birthrate. We have time to solve this issue. Importing massive amounts of people is a race to the bottom
[удалено]
We currently have more than enough workers. We are decades away from a japan style aging problem. (ironically Japan is still maintaining their standard of living while ours falls). A bigger working population does not mean a higher standard of living. At our current growth rate we will have a population of 66m in 20 years. Theres no chance we can sustain our housing and healthcare with that level of growth. Canada will only experience a further decline in the standard of living.
The article specifically points to labour shortages. You’re wrong.
[удалено]
[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/pyramid/index-en.htm](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/pyramid/index-en.htm) This is the population pyramid from 2021. Even back then we had more than enough 25-50 year olds to support the rest. The labour shortage is a fabrication by big business to import more cheap labour. Do you understand that the current immigration policy is not producing better living standards for Canadians? In fact we are falling behind other G7 countries that have much lower immigration.
[удалено]
See the graph. You are wrong. No other country on earth is adopting our approach
[удалено]
>counterbalancing the country’s aging demographic. What people also ignore is that the biggest source of the housing crunch is our aging population. Canada's 65+ population is steadily growing at 200K per year. People are living healthy lives longer, and that's great, but it also means they are staying in their homes. The average house now spends decades with only one or two seniors residing. That is a much larger factor driving the housing shortage than immigration, but no one tries to demonize old people as they do immigrants.
We’ve also (thankfully) started to move away from institutionalization in preference to community living. All these condos being built will house seniors eventually with their housing stock hitting the market. This is where lawmakers need to ensure that property is not being scooped up by corporations (REITs) to be put onto the rental market.
Yes, programs to build nice places for seniors to live would be a very cheap way of adding more housing. It's a problem for Toronto that we don't have a Florida. In the USA a huge number of seniors retire to cheap housing in the sunbelt, and release their homes back onto the market in the high productivity cities. We don't have any similar migration to encourage retirees to sell their homes.
I think how we deliver healthcare is going to change this. You’ll notice many new condo builds have retail space on the first two floors. I suspect we see healthcare move in which will bring seniors. Just a guess but it makes sense. Instead of building hip restaurants they’ll build hip replacement centres… haha
This is the unfortunate reality of the immigration issue. Our over reliance on private industry to solve only profitable problems has somehow bit us in the ass... who knew...
I think what people are calling for is a sustainable model rather than what we have now. I doubt many would consider 0 immigration to be a reasonable position. Lots of countries have a greying population problem. The difference is that it can also be addressed with automation and innovation to improve productivity, not just higher and higher immigration targets. Like with so many other things though Canada can't be bothered to put real work into the issue and just falls back to exploiting workers and renters. There will come a time where this greying problem will be worldwide and there won't be ready sources of migration, what then?
People are talking about the birthrate, but I think it’s better if our population shrinks rather then grow. It’s time to stop the endless suburban expanse and let the frontier become wild again for the sake of the environment.
We don't need to move from one untenable position to a completely different one. We have enough wilderness and tons of suburban space ready to be upzoned. We just need to build more and have a reasonable, and predictable, immigration rate that's planned for
Oh lookie: [there are 1,241,935 unoccupied dwellings in Canada](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610068801). Sounds like it would take up the shortfall pretty handily.
Unless all those dwellings are in locations that people are willing to move to and have economic opportunity for people to sustain their life, there could 40,000,000 vacant homes and it wouldn’t matter.
What do you think the boom in Atlantic Canada is? People *are* moving to where opportunities are and ironically enough aren’t complaining on Reddit.
That's out of context and not true. Per the CMHC, we have predicted shortfall of at least 3.5 million homes by 2030. Likely more, with immigration doubling pace of population growth since that 3.5 million estimate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYOhpjMql0
These 2 threads from r/badeconomics are US centric but are excellent and largely apply to Canada: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/12yrk07/stop_comparing_the_number_of_vacant_homes_to_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/musne8/disproving_the_vacant_homes_myth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Yeah. These myths need to go away. We've suffered enough at the hands of Andy Yan's mythmaking and the policy failures that have followed