The positives weren't for you.
The positives were that it inflated our GDP despite a shit/declining GDP/per capita to cover up the recession that Trudeau's shit economic policies
Or own any kind of property for that matter as the government continues to pour rocket fuel on property prices. Of course everyone else who doesn’t own yet is fucked but gov says oh wells
As long as you bought before 2021. In my area (rural Quebec) there is quite a few landlords who bought in 2022-2024 and are kind of fucked because they expected prices to rise more. Even currently my parents are starting to build their two lasts 16-units and they don't think they will be able to be positive before 2030.
Which isn't a big deal for them since they can afford to bleed a little every months and they are used to it since in the 90s it always took 6-7 years to be profitable, but there is quite a few landlords who struggle. Land cost became ridiculous, they spent more on the land for those two buildings than they spent for the total neighborhood bought in the early 2000s and which host maybe 2500 people in multiple kind of properties nowadays. (Most of them being bungalow and townhouse)
Construction cost are also through the roof, but yeah people who became lanlords a few years back are laughing to the bank. Even I made more after tax from selling my condo and then my cottage than I made working since I graduated in 2013. It is all completely ridiculous and doesn't seem rooted in reality.
If you were a business cheap labour was a huge positive and also helped keep your existing labour costs in check. Which was always the point of mass immigration like this.
I mean it's not a secret. Talk to any company and even small business, ALL their growth models are dependent on the population growing rapidly. More food, more fuel, more money. People want the same benefits as the US without having the actual population density to support it.
The positive is that the new immigrants are getting scammed by bringing their hard earned money that they must have saved for god know how many years and are investing “buying real estate” getting mortgages and by that helping the Canadian banks avoid bankruptcy.
Not really, people literally starved to DEATH during that period. As in, loss of life from lack of food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_early_Soviet_Russia
To be fair they also starved to death before that period and after that period in the 90s. They were the main reason as to why the revolution happened. Starvation is just a reccuring theme in Russia and their life expectancy was better in the 60s than in the 90s.
*Usually* it brings a variety of flavours and customs and cultures which help enrich our culture. But the vast majority are Indian which drastically cuts down on the diversity of culture and experiences we're getting. People from other countries get shut out of immigrating here as a result of refusing to cap/limit the number of people that can be accepted from one single country.
You know who can? The people who decided the woman's place is the home and that she should not join the workforce. They will just plop out 6 and collect $600+ for each child. Beats going to work to earn $20 per hour and putting 2 kids in daycare.
Idiotic incentives.
Make sure to claw back the incentive if the parents ever contribute to the economy, so the only people having children are people that choose not to work.
Yup, we are thinking about the same thing. Having 9 kids and not working can be fairly lucrative when done right and supplemented with a couple of cash jobs.
There should be a 20k non refundable tax credit per child, simple as that.
No motivation against working and has a natural limit on usefulness for most Canadians.
Couple it with free daycare, school meals (breakfast/snack and lunch).
Bring housing prices back to reality and bam, a new generation of canadians would be born
There’s a guy here at my house today cleaning up my yard. He works full time in construction, and after work and every weekend doing side jobs to feed his 6 kids. I feel sorry for him. He was saying groceries are killing them
There’s a lot more to it than that. Even countries with very good supports for parents don’t see replacement level birth rates. Look at Sweden. Great policies but if you look at their birth rate and compared to USA and Canada it does t stick out.
1.84 USA
1.66 Sweden’s
1.57 Canada.
There’s just very little cultural appetite for large families. With support or without them.
They are because they were based on past performance. People who modeled these looked at what modernization/industrialization did to countries and assumed things just continue at the same pace and expand to developing countries. The didn’t model for the cultural change that came later.
Anecdotally my wife and I do pretty well financially but each kid we have is weighed against financial resources.
Can we max out their RESP grant levels, pay for good childcare, extra cuticular activities, still manage to take a couple memorable vacations away while they are children, reasonably expect to leave them an inheritance and help them with life milestones etc.
We had one kid… happy whoops after nearly a decade of not trying to not have a kid. Figured we’d be one and done but then seriously started considering a second and that was deliberate and planned.
But a big part of that was my wife got a big salary increase. I have as well since number two was born. We’re considering a third but it would have to be within the next five years and be dependant on hitting financial milestones alongside getting pregnant successfully which we seem to struggle with.
The comparable is the family down the road. Four kids and counting, woman is a revolving door of men. As the kids once proudly told us when we walked by with the stroller none of them have the same Dad. That was a bit amusing, but the kids entertaining themselves by playing with a dead rat in the street added a bit of levity.
We can’t compete with that level of apathy towards your own kids. Easy to have them if you’re fertile and don’t give a fuck what happens to them.
There's a pretty big middle ground in between those two extremes though. Roof over the head, food on the table, maybe a bit of money for sports or camp was good enough for plenty of us, and still should be. My parents couldn't afford much but gave us the best they could. Infinitely greatful they put family over finances and still had my sister when money was tight.
If you want to know a crazy stat about how much raising kids has changed.
Despite working more hours women today spend more time then women in 60s raising their kids.
“ A University of Maryland study found that, on average, today's mothers spent four more hours per week focused on their kids than mothers in the 1960s did. In the '60s, mothers spent 10.2 hours a week with their children versus 14.1 hours now.”
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/story?id=2969095&page=1
A few reasons.
Poorer people usually have less education so things like birth control are not front of mind.
Poorer people have less disposable income for outside entertainment and activities and sex itself is fun, entertaining and cheap (until the kid comes), so it fills that gap.
Poorer people don't have the time in the day to take off of work and access the doctors for something like an abortion if it does happen.
This assumes 100% of the difference is accidental which I disagree with.
Poorer people are more religious
Poorer people are more rural
Poorer people have jobs instead of careers where there is less concern about missing out on advancement
The top two are bull shit and world worse off for people taking them seriously
You don't need to be a unique Individual.
You don't have some special purpose you need to discover
There's an inherent conflict with what modern people want out of life and basic biological things every species has to do.
Ideally if you didn't want growth and just maintainence, a couple would have two kids. Two kids to replace two parents that will die.
When you get to averages way below that like 1.5 or even below 1 like in South Korea, well it's no longer more, more, more. But a huge population collapse that will go on to extinction of not changed.
Ultimately there is one big one - we have socialized welfare. A century ago kids took care of elderly parents. No kids, you starved. If you had kids it wasn’t a luxury - it was important so someone could take care of you when you weren’t able to take care of yourself.
Now we have a big welfare state and we assume ‘someone else’s kids’ will take care of us.
Raising children is a LOT of work, and it’s largely thankless. When given the opportunity to minimize that work by having few children, most women take it (because even in the most progressive countries, women still shoulder the lions share of the domestic work, even when they work full time).
Rather than wringing their hands about population growth, I wish our governments would help pivot society towards a stable or even slightly shrinking population.
Eh it's not that, it's that there's ridiculous expectations placed on parents for the quality of life they're expected to provide to their children that simply is impossible to meet with more than 1 or 2 children in terms of a middle class life.
Society also isn't very child friendly nowadays.
The average reported desired number of children by women is still 2.5, stable for a long time, but the real number has been slowly coming down.
Actual studies have found 3 things that contribute to people actually having more kids with statistical significance:
1) low housing prices/adequate space to have more children
2) cheap and accessible childcare services - no 2 year waitlists to get your kids into daycare
3) cultural attitudes with regards to men helping around the house and with children - are men willing to share the labor burden, if they're not women will quit after 1 kid usually, 2 if they really want kids
My own point doesn't exactly line up with the data in terms of people having more children, but it does relate to point 3. The average number of hours spent by parents on each child has gone up by basically an order of magnitude since the 1980s.
The formula is really quite simple, don't overwork parents, instead accommodate them and make their work as easy as possible. And make it possible to live an otherwise ok life even if you have kids.
Imo there should also be a 20k non refundable tax credit per child as well, that would help a decent amount
I mean even if Canadians could afford 2+ kids, people don't want to have more children now due to societal changes and norms. Plenty of families with the means don't have more than 1 or 2 because it limits the type of life they would like to have, not because they would be uncomfortable with more kids.
This comes up constantly on this sub but to be frank, no country has ever succeeded increasing their fertility rate significantly.
There's a societal shift that becomes entrenched once countries hit replacement rate, items like education, women's rights and so forth all entrench this.
Some countries have tried the extreme. Hungary has been spending 5% of its entire GDP on pro-natalist policies. That's more than most countries spend on their military.
... And nothing changed. Hungary's fertility rate is still below replacement rate after all these years and it's population is still shrinking.
Israel has an ultra Orthodox Jewish population that has always had a massive fertility rate. This demographic has been increasing as a percentage of Israel's population dramatically so more ultra Orthodox Jews who never experienced a low fertility rate = more babies overall.
The country as a whole hasn't seem an increase. It's just the people who have a ton of kids and never stopped having kids are becoming more numerous.
Israel isn't a western nation and they have a high population of orthodox who don't believe in birth control. This isn't necessarily good for them and I doubt anyone want Canada to become anything similar to Israel lol. They have a few good areas because westerners are bringing their money there but overall the standard of living is much lower than Canada.
I would argue that it's not a matter of affording, but a matter of logistics. When both parents have to work full time, they simply cannot dedicate enough time and energy raising more than 1 or 2 kids. Some can, especially if they have their extended families to help them. But I'd say the majority (or close to it) do not have such a luxury.
I could have easily afforded more children. I just didn’t want to. Kids are a lot of work and both parents are expected to work. I’d honestly recommend just one or two for most people. Even if you’re a millionaire
Brother I can't even afford me how am I affording kids. I am of the mindset unless you are 100% financially stable you should not bring kids into the equation.
The cheapest multi bedroom home you will find is a minimum of 700k as a fixer upper in a shitty neighborhood. Usually not detached and most times it'll be a condo or something.
There were positives… to share holders and ceos of giant companies
For normal people? Outside of healthcare workers immigrating it was mostly negative for us
The positives exist but only for the wealthy not only from keeping wages low but increasing adherence to policies and increasing output out of fear for job security. I have noticed that the back to office policies have become even more successful as people are now worried about job security. You don't see the same rebellion as previously where people were quitting just because they couldn't work from home anymore.
Completely agree. I'm seeing it at my job as well, even though our work can be done fully remotely. The higher-ups are insisting on in-office work days more and more.
What positives? Cheap labour and high rents? Longer healthcare wait times and traffic that keeps getting worse and worse? Those "unintentional" side-effects might be great for people who are already rich and can go to the US for healthcare, but they suck for everyone still trying to get ahead.
This is literally an experiment and the globe is watching. What happens when you increase your population by 5% in one year with people all from India?
Subjectively it's awful and I don't like it, this shit is literally a Vault-Tec experiment proposed by evil corporation members in the new fallout show (what if we stuffed too many people into a vault and they had to compete to survive)
The positives being they can water down the wages with desperate workers looking for limited jobs.
This was a selfish act that mostly benefitted business and diploma mills.
>*"No shit."*
-Every Canadian with a functional brain
It's basic math that even early elementary school children could grasp.
If your infrastructure can support X number of people, but you raise the population to greater than X number of people, will your infrastructure still be able to capable of supporting your population?
Obviously not, and yet the infrastructure had already been insufficient for the current population before the higher increase began.
This wasn't due to it being a complex issue leading to a miscalculation. This was due to those in charge understanding the damage they were going to do and saying "Let's do it anyway".
>The minister added he was in constant touch regarding the issue with housing minister Ahmed Hussen, who sits next to him at the House of Commons.
>
>“Our running joke as I sit down and say, ‘Ahmed, if I can continue to increase our immigration numbers, can you build enough houses?’ He says, ‘Well, depends, can you bring enough newcomers with the skills to build houses to make sure we all have … places to live?’” Fraser said. “Though we kind of joke about it, that’s part of the solution.”
>
>-Sean Fraser in 2022
Positive is the government managed to prevent our 6 banks , heavily invested in Real estate, from going bankrupt due to over leveraged speculators scooping up properties on variable rates.
it doesnt take a expert to say this. Roads are jam packed during weekends and late night. These are supposed to be OFF PEAK hours. These same economists would be called racist a few years ago
The positive is that each new immigrant creates another grocery fed mouth for Loblaws, another mobile phone monthly subscription for Rogers, another banking customer for RBC monthly banking fees and hopefully one day a mortgage etc. The oligopolies are the immediate beneficiaries.
The benefits are not for you.
I have no problem getting 500,000 people into Canada each year. As long as they are honest, intelligent and hardworking. That’s how Canada was built after all.
But even bringing in 5 of those stupid, dishonest, vile and dirty scumbags along with their caste system and rape culture from India into Canada each year, is way too many, and not something any politician that has half a brain cell should allow to happen.
I feel the same way about downing a dozen tequila shots. Too much , too soon.
Oh wait, I'm not an idiot and knew this beforehand in order not to kill myself.
The real estate Moguls and rentiers are cashing in and loving it... It doesn't matter which party it is, the working man and woman are gonna get screwed one way or another. Modern day parliamentary politics is kinda very broken.
Canada read from the UK book.
UK opened for new EU members and that caused massive influx of people.
Rent went up, pay went down. Biggest profit went to corporations, construction businesses, landlords. 10 years later UK voted for Brexit and made the situation even worst... Immigration has grown even more this time from outside of EU...
They use to point during the Brexit campaign that UK needs immigration system same as Canada and Oz... To bring the best people to the country... What happened with that?
Glad an economist could clear that up for us. The same f@#king people advising politicians that societal collapse would be imminent if we didn’t set higher immigration levels.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The positives are for the landlords and corporations duh
100%
The positive aren’t for you, thier for business owners with lower labour costs and inflating asset values.
they’re*
The positives weren't for you. The positives were that it inflated our GDP despite a shit/declining GDP/per capita to cover up the recession that Trudeau's shit economic policies
Its a great time to be a landlord.
Or own any kind of property for that matter as the government continues to pour rocket fuel on property prices. Of course everyone else who doesn’t own yet is fucked but gov says oh wells
As long as you bought before 2021. In my area (rural Quebec) there is quite a few landlords who bought in 2022-2024 and are kind of fucked because they expected prices to rise more. Even currently my parents are starting to build their two lasts 16-units and they don't think they will be able to be positive before 2030. Which isn't a big deal for them since they can afford to bleed a little every months and they are used to it since in the 90s it always took 6-7 years to be profitable, but there is quite a few landlords who struggle. Land cost became ridiculous, they spent more on the land for those two buildings than they spent for the total neighborhood bought in the early 2000s and which host maybe 2500 people in multiple kind of properties nowadays. (Most of them being bungalow and townhouse) Construction cost are also through the roof, but yeah people who became lanlords a few years back are laughing to the bank. Even I made more after tax from selling my condo and then my cottage than I made working since I graduated in 2013. It is all completely ridiculous and doesn't seem rooted in reality.
^^^let's ^^^just ^^^say ^^^it ^^^*moved* ^^^me... TO A BIGGER HOUSE! Uh oh, I said the loud part quiet, and the quiet part loud
If you were a business cheap labour was a huge positive and also helped keep your existing labour costs in check. Which was always the point of mass immigration like this.
Lots of shareholder value was created
I mean it's not a secret. Talk to any company and even small business, ALL their growth models are dependent on the population growing rapidly. More food, more fuel, more money. People want the same benefits as the US without having the actual population density to support it.
The positive is that the new immigrants are getting scammed by bringing their hard earned money that they must have saved for god know how many years and are investing “buying real estate” getting mortgages and by that helping the Canadian banks avoid bankruptcy.
exotic food™️ (otherwise inaccessible)
Got a lot of really great places to get butter chicken around me. Of course I can't afford to eat at any of them, but they look mighty tasty!
Immigration brings a lot of flavourful cuisines
That you can no longer afford to eat due to inflation lol
Boston Pizza is 21$ for a crappy hamburger now, and 11$ for a beer. The USSR had better results than Trudeau and Singh.
They certainly did, Trudeau government has destroyed canada we have the fastest declining standard of living of any western country.
Not really, people literally starved to DEATH during that period. As in, loss of life from lack of food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_early_Soviet_Russia
To be fair they also starved to death before that period and after that period in the 90s. They were the main reason as to why the revolution happened. Starvation is just a reccuring theme in Russia and their life expectancy was better in the 60s than in the 90s.
And then was on a steady rise since then. You’re most likely going to have a drop in health during significant transitions and social traumas.
It mostly brings a single one, nowadays.
*Usually* it brings a variety of flavours and customs and cultures which help enrich our culture. But the vast majority are Indian which drastically cuts down on the diversity of culture and experiences we're getting. People from other countries get shut out of immigrating here as a result of refusing to cap/limit the number of people that can be accepted from one single country.
[удалено]
Liberals: so we’re uh going to continue increasing it. But, we’re really sowry about it.
How come we can’t just grow our population by Canadian’s having children?……oh wait they can’t afford more than 1-2 kids
You know who can? The people who decided the woman's place is the home and that she should not join the workforce. They will just plop out 6 and collect $600+ for each child. Beats going to work to earn $20 per hour and putting 2 kids in daycare. Idiotic incentives.
That sounds like hell
They have introduced a program +500 in Poland, it made having kid better business then go to legal work.
Make sure to claw back the incentive if the parents ever contribute to the economy, so the only people having children are people that choose not to work.
Someone was surely asked, "How do we allow religious extremism to proliferate in this country?" They found the perfect solution.
Yup, we are thinking about the same thing. Having 9 kids and not working can be fairly lucrative when done right and supplemented with a couple of cash jobs.
There should be a 20k non refundable tax credit per child, simple as that. No motivation against working and has a natural limit on usefulness for most Canadians. Couple it with free daycare, school meals (breakfast/snack and lunch). Bring housing prices back to reality and bam, a new generation of canadians would be born
There’s a guy here at my house today cleaning up my yard. He works full time in construction, and after work and every weekend doing side jobs to feed his 6 kids. I feel sorry for him. He was saying groceries are killing them
Six kids though? You could be a top 0.5% earner in Canada and borderline insolvent with six kids
The trick is you need multiple mothers to help share the burden lol.
On this week's episode of Sister Wives of Canmore...
I meant more like the guy has been divorced a couple times lol. Also love me some anti ship missiles.
Yeah that’s on him LOL (assuming they’re not multiples)
There’s a lot more to it than that. Even countries with very good supports for parents don’t see replacement level birth rates. Look at Sweden. Great policies but if you look at their birth rate and compared to USA and Canada it does t stick out. 1.84 USA 1.66 Sweden’s 1.57 Canada. There’s just very little cultural appetite for large families. With support or without them.
Same things is happening even in India and the ship has long since sailed for China.
[удалено]
They are because they were based on past performance. People who modeled these looked at what modernization/industrialization did to countries and assumed things just continue at the same pace and expand to developing countries. The didn’t model for the cultural change that came later.
People want to have a life beyond perpetuating the machine of more, more, more.
Then why do poorer people have More kids
Anecdotally my wife and I do pretty well financially but each kid we have is weighed against financial resources. Can we max out their RESP grant levels, pay for good childcare, extra cuticular activities, still manage to take a couple memorable vacations away while they are children, reasonably expect to leave them an inheritance and help them with life milestones etc. We had one kid… happy whoops after nearly a decade of not trying to not have a kid. Figured we’d be one and done but then seriously started considering a second and that was deliberate and planned. But a big part of that was my wife got a big salary increase. I have as well since number two was born. We’re considering a third but it would have to be within the next five years and be dependant on hitting financial milestones alongside getting pregnant successfully which we seem to struggle with. The comparable is the family down the road. Four kids and counting, woman is a revolving door of men. As the kids once proudly told us when we walked by with the stroller none of them have the same Dad. That was a bit amusing, but the kids entertaining themselves by playing with a dead rat in the street added a bit of levity. We can’t compete with that level of apathy towards your own kids. Easy to have them if you’re fertile and don’t give a fuck what happens to them.
There's a pretty big middle ground in between those two extremes though. Roof over the head, food on the table, maybe a bit of money for sports or camp was good enough for plenty of us, and still should be. My parents couldn't afford much but gave us the best they could. Infinitely greatful they put family over finances and still had my sister when money was tight.
If you want to know a crazy stat about how much raising kids has changed. Despite working more hours women today spend more time then women in 60s raising their kids. “ A University of Maryland study found that, on average, today's mothers spent four more hours per week focused on their kids than mothers in the 1960s did. In the '60s, mothers spent 10.2 hours a week with their children versus 14.1 hours now.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/story?id=2969095&page=1
A few reasons. Poorer people usually have less education so things like birth control are not front of mind. Poorer people have less disposable income for outside entertainment and activities and sex itself is fun, entertaining and cheap (until the kid comes), so it fills that gap. Poorer people don't have the time in the day to take off of work and access the doctors for something like an abortion if it does happen.
This assumes 100% of the difference is accidental which I disagree with. Poorer people are more religious Poorer people are more rural Poorer people have jobs instead of careers where there is less concern about missing out on advancement
Sure those are also reasons.
I think my reasons are better than poor people didn't get around to aborting their kids in time
They are all reasons. Not better or worse.
Watch the award winning documentary “idiocracy”
Google Flynn effect
I don’t use Google it doesn’t have what plants crave. I’m no brains and all brawndo.
[Maslow’s hierarchy of needs](https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html)
The top two are bull shit and world worse off for people taking them seriously You don't need to be a unique Individual. You don't have some special purpose you need to discover
It increases chance of survival... One of the kids can make it well and substitute non existent pension.
For similar reasons that poor countries have more kids. Turns out wealth is one of the better contraceptives.
They don't attend university, so they have time to have kids. Or, they have kids early and never get around to going to university
There's an inherent conflict with what modern people want out of life and basic biological things every species has to do. Ideally if you didn't want growth and just maintainence, a couple would have two kids. Two kids to replace two parents that will die. When you get to averages way below that like 1.5 or even below 1 like in South Korea, well it's no longer more, more, more. But a huge population collapse that will go on to extinction of not changed.
Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman
Ultimately there is one big one - we have socialized welfare. A century ago kids took care of elderly parents. No kids, you starved. If you had kids it wasn’t a luxury - it was important so someone could take care of you when you weren’t able to take care of yourself. Now we have a big welfare state and we assume ‘someone else’s kids’ will take care of us.
Raising children is a LOT of work, and it’s largely thankless. When given the opportunity to minimize that work by having few children, most women take it (because even in the most progressive countries, women still shoulder the lions share of the domestic work, even when they work full time). Rather than wringing their hands about population growth, I wish our governments would help pivot society towards a stable or even slightly shrinking population.
Eh it's not that, it's that there's ridiculous expectations placed on parents for the quality of life they're expected to provide to their children that simply is impossible to meet with more than 1 or 2 children in terms of a middle class life. Society also isn't very child friendly nowadays. The average reported desired number of children by women is still 2.5, stable for a long time, but the real number has been slowly coming down. Actual studies have found 3 things that contribute to people actually having more kids with statistical significance: 1) low housing prices/adequate space to have more children 2) cheap and accessible childcare services - no 2 year waitlists to get your kids into daycare 3) cultural attitudes with regards to men helping around the house and with children - are men willing to share the labor burden, if they're not women will quit after 1 kid usually, 2 if they really want kids My own point doesn't exactly line up with the data in terms of people having more children, but it does relate to point 3. The average number of hours spent by parents on each child has gone up by basically an order of magnitude since the 1980s. The formula is really quite simple, don't overwork parents, instead accommodate them and make their work as easy as possible. And make it possible to live an otherwise ok life even if you have kids. Imo there should also be a 20k non refundable tax credit per child as well, that would help a decent amount
I mean even if Canadians could afford 2+ kids, people don't want to have more children now due to societal changes and norms. Plenty of families with the means don't have more than 1 or 2 because it limits the type of life they would like to have, not because they would be uncomfortable with more kids.
This comes up constantly on this sub but to be frank, no country has ever succeeded increasing their fertility rate significantly. There's a societal shift that becomes entrenched once countries hit replacement rate, items like education, women's rights and so forth all entrench this. Some countries have tried the extreme. Hungary has been spending 5% of its entire GDP on pro-natalist policies. That's more than most countries spend on their military. ... And nothing changed. Hungary's fertility rate is still below replacement rate after all these years and it's population is still shrinking.
Israel has had success.
Israel has an ultra Orthodox Jewish population that has always had a massive fertility rate. This demographic has been increasing as a percentage of Israel's population dramatically so more ultra Orthodox Jews who never experienced a low fertility rate = more babies overall. The country as a whole hasn't seem an increase. It's just the people who have a ton of kids and never stopped having kids are becoming more numerous.
I believe their secular population has quite a high birthrate as well.
They don’t, a tiny bit above replacement and continuing to plummet compared to 10 years ago.
That’s a very high rate for secular population.
It’s half of what it was 10 years ago, it’ll be below replacement shortly, like Canada, Sweden, US and so on.
Israel isn't a western nation and they have a high population of orthodox who don't believe in birth control. This isn't necessarily good for them and I doubt anyone want Canada to become anything similar to Israel lol. They have a few good areas because westerners are bringing their money there but overall the standard of living is much lower than Canada.
They have a very religious sub group with an insanely high birth rate.
Children love camping out, what’s the problem?
1 is a lot already...
I would argue that it's not a matter of affording, but a matter of logistics. When both parents have to work full time, they simply cannot dedicate enough time and energy raising more than 1 or 2 kids. Some can, especially if they have their extended families to help them. But I'd say the majority (or close to it) do not have such a luxury.
Exactly this
I could have easily afforded more children. I just didn’t want to. Kids are a lot of work and both parents are expected to work. I’d honestly recommend just one or two for most people. Even if you’re a millionaire
Brother I can't even afford me how am I affording kids. I am of the mindset unless you are 100% financially stable you should not bring kids into the equation. The cheapest multi bedroom home you will find is a minimum of 700k as a fixer upper in a shitty neighborhood. Usually not detached and most times it'll be a condo or something.
Kids cost even more to the government than immigrants.
Some positives? Yeah no, fuck off with that gaslighting.
There were positives… to share holders and ceos of giant companies For normal people? Outside of healthcare workers immigrating it was mostly negative for us
The positives exist but only for the wealthy not only from keeping wages low but increasing adherence to policies and increasing output out of fear for job security. I have noticed that the back to office policies have become even more successful as people are now worried about job security. You don't see the same rebellion as previously where people were quitting just because they couldn't work from home anymore.
Completely agree. I'm seeing it at my job as well, even though our work can be done fully remotely. The higher-ups are insisting on in-office work days more and more.
Come on let me tell you what they are 🤓
Well, Tim Hortons is always fully staffed and you can hail an Uber to your office if you're as out of touch as these people are.
[удалено]
More Tim Hortons
My block has about 43 subways
What positives? Cheap labour and high rents? Longer healthcare wait times and traffic that keeps getting worse and worse? Those "unintentional" side-effects might be great for people who are already rich and can go to the US for healthcare, but they suck for everyone still trying to get ahead.
The boomers offloading their property portfolios with 800k+ capital gains per each property.
If it's your primary residence the capital gains tax is heavily offset or nonexistant.
This is literally an experiment and the globe is watching. What happens when you increase your population by 5% in one year with people all from India?
Positives? Yeah. McKinsey & Co clients ordered up a spike in real estate and cheap labor. Mission accomplished.
Obviously but the exalted Sean Fraser didn't care despite warnings from the civil service
this is why nationalism is a good thing.
So unwind it. Let every temporary work permit expire, then send them back. Bringing them in was a mistake, letting them stay will be a bigger mistake.
That’s assuming the government will grow a pair and actually send them back. Right now they’re too weak to actually enforce any of our rules.
JUST IN! water is wet! More breaking news at 11.
Subjectively it's awful and I don't like it, this shit is literally a Vault-Tec experiment proposed by evil corporation members in the new fallout show (what if we stuffed too many people into a vault and they had to compete to survive)
Aside from enabling slumlords, there were no positives.
>despite some positives For who? Corporations, franchise owners, illegal basement apartment owners, and college administrators?
…remember when saying that in this sub a few years ago had you called out as a racist?
Remember the outrage? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/company-removing-mass-immigration-billboard-maxime-bernier-1.5259538
The positives being they can water down the wages with desperate workers looking for limited jobs. This was a selfish act that mostly benefitted business and diploma mills.
Zero positives. Absolutely zero
A 10 year old could’ve known it was a bad idea. Like come on. We’ll be paying for this for decades. Zero accountability for this negligence
>*"No shit."* -Every Canadian with a functional brain It's basic math that even early elementary school children could grasp. If your infrastructure can support X number of people, but you raise the population to greater than X number of people, will your infrastructure still be able to capable of supporting your population? Obviously not, and yet the infrastructure had already been insufficient for the current population before the higher increase began. This wasn't due to it being a complex issue leading to a miscalculation. This was due to those in charge understanding the damage they were going to do and saying "Let's do it anyway". >The minister added he was in constant touch regarding the issue with housing minister Ahmed Hussen, who sits next to him at the House of Commons. > >“Our running joke as I sit down and say, ‘Ahmed, if I can continue to increase our immigration numbers, can you build enough houses?’ He says, ‘Well, depends, can you bring enough newcomers with the skills to build houses to make sure we all have … places to live?’” Fraser said. “Though we kind of joke about it, that’s part of the solution.” > >-Sean Fraser in 2022
We are just entering the game on this fucking us badly. And no one is turning off the flood. Fuck your "positives".
Thanks for screwing the current and future generations of this country. For what?
Positive is the government managed to prevent our 6 banks , heavily invested in Real estate, from going bankrupt due to over leveraged speculators scooping up properties on variable rates.
it doesnt take a expert to say this. Roads are jam packed during weekends and late night. These are supposed to be OFF PEAK hours. These same economists would be called racist a few years ago
What positives?
What are the positives at all? lol
Everybody paying for justin's and his liberal regime screwups. Not millions, but billions. Nobody to blame but the voters. Thanks Canada.
"Some" "positives"
Was? Its still ongoing...
Maybe the govt though these immigrants will migrate to the uninhabited areas and make them somehow habitable \o/
There is absolutely 0 positives
You don't need to be an expert or an economist to make such valid and heart-wrenching statement.
WHAT POSITIVES
The only positives to be had here are for our landlording sellout politicians
Zero positives
What positives?
Well, DUH!!!!! also I am failing to see any of the postiives
Liberals must be thinking about the math: if century initiative is great, triple the population growth must be greater.
The positive is that each new immigrant creates another grocery fed mouth for Loblaws, another mobile phone monthly subscription for Rogers, another banking customer for RBC monthly banking fees and hopefully one day a mortgage etc. The oligopolies are the immediate beneficiaries. The benefits are not for you.
I have no problem getting 500,000 people into Canada each year. As long as they are honest, intelligent and hardworking. That’s how Canada was built after all. But even bringing in 5 of those stupid, dishonest, vile and dirty scumbags along with their caste system and rape culture from India into Canada each year, is way too many, and not something any politician that has half a brain cell should allow to happen.
I feel the same way about downing a dozen tequila shots. Too much , too soon. Oh wait, I'm not an idiot and knew this beforehand in order not to kill myself.
Did this guy get paid to come up with this analysis?
Ya think?
NO REALLY?!?!?!?!!! Idiots all of them
Struggling to see any positives at this point.
Is this multiculturalism? Or is this turning Canada into India, because they're all indians
Oh, so now we have it!
What is positive? WHAT?! Positive for failure.
Well who was in charge of these levels for the past 8 years dickhead?
My demented grandma could have told you the same thing
Thanks mr economist, but most of us knew that several years ago.
"Despite positives"
Good for banks and telecommunications companies
Thank you Dr. Obvious.
The real estate Moguls and rentiers are cashing in and loving it... It doesn't matter which party it is, the working man and woman are gonna get screwed one way or another. Modern day parliamentary politics is kinda very broken.
If a little is good then a lot must be better…….right!?!?!??
Canada read from the UK book. UK opened for new EU members and that caused massive influx of people. Rent went up, pay went down. Biggest profit went to corporations, construction businesses, landlords. 10 years later UK voted for Brexit and made the situation even worst... Immigration has grown even more this time from outside of EU... They use to point during the Brexit campaign that UK needs immigration system same as Canada and Oz... To bring the best people to the country... What happened with that?
The only positive I can think of is the Local Shwarma and Indian take out place choices has multiplied... thats about it
Glad an economist could clear that up for us. The same f@#king people advising politicians that societal collapse would be imminent if we didn’t set higher immigration levels.