GDP of a country obsessed with real estate isn’t doing well? Who would have thought?
For years, when people could just dump all their money into real estate and have it pay off way more than any type of business income, who could imagine that possible negative consequences down the road? Start a company? Invest in a business? No way. Just buy a 3rd property, watch it appreciate it in value and then sell. The Canadian way.
Last edited by Johnny199r; 03-28-2024 at 06:51 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny199r For This Useful Post:
Like most everything, immigration involves tradeoffs, and immigration targets should try to strike a balance. There’s a growing consensus among economists and public policy analysts in this country that Canada overshot the mark in recent years.
Quote:
As Ottawa overhauls its temporary immigration programs, a new analysis by Bank of Nova Scotia warns that the unchecked population surge of the past two years is behind two-thirds of the “massive” decline in productivity over the same time period.
The drop stems from a combination of two factors: chronically-low business investment in Canada and the sudden explosion in population, which grew by 1.25 million last year alone.
Given weak investment levels, that’s far more than the 350,000 permanent and temporary immigrants Canada’s economy can absorb without having a negative impact on productivity, according to Scotiabank economists Rebekah Young and René Lalonde.
“There is a sweet spot when it comes to economic immigration – where everyone is better off over time – but it is narrow and Canada has strayed far off course,” they wrote.
The surge of temporary workers has helped keep a lid on what would have been even higher wage increases, she added, giving businesses even less of a reason to invest in productivity-boosting measures.
Canada is caught in a “population trap” and needs to rein in immigration significantly to escape it, according to a Monday report from National Bank of Canada economists, part of an emerging consensus that explosive growth is exacerbating some of the country’s economic troubles.
In the report, economists Stéfane Marion and Alexandra Ducharme say “staggering” population growth is stretching the country’s capacity to absorb new arrivals. They add that the main example of this strain is in the housing market, where construction has lagged behind demand from newcomers.
The National Bank economists argue that annual population growth should not exceed 300,000 to 500,000.
That would be a dramatic reduction from current levels. Over the 12 months to Oct. 1, Canada’s population rose by 1.25 million, or 3.2 per cent, the quickest pace of growth since the late 1950s. Almost the entirety of the population increase was driven by international migration, and most of that was from temporary residents, such as students and workers.
“Canada is caught in a population trap that has historically been the preserve of emerging economies,” the report says. “We currently lack the infrastructure and capital stock in this country to adequately absorb current population growth and improve our standard of living.”
Interpreting calls for reducing immigration levels as vilification of immigrants themselves is dumb. It’s like denouncing a proposed increase in retirement age as a malicious attack on seniors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-28-2024 at 09:09 AM.
Like most everything, immigration involves tradeoffs, and immigration targets should try to strike a balance. There’s a growing consensus among economists and public policy analysts in this country that Canada overshot the mark in recent years.
Interpreting calls for reducing immigration levels as vilification of immigrants themselves is dumb. It’s like denouncing a proposed increase in retirement age as a malicious attack on seniors.
If it’s dumb to ascribe all calls for reducing immigration levels as vilification of immigrants it would probably be equally dumb to ascribe none of the calls for reducing immigration levels as vilification of immigrants.
Thankfully, most of us are intelligent enough that we can use contextual clues to figure out which is which, and that’s not saying a whole lot, because it’s not quite as difficult as it might seem.
Why do you think big employers lobby the federal government to increase temporary foreign worker numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
By increasing competition for jobs you lower wages required to attract and retain employees.
Azure isnt blaming the worker he’s blaming the program.
Re-read what was written:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Low wage workers being brought in to keep wages down. Have you not been paying attention the past 10-15 years?
These workers don’t sign their own paycheques, their employer does. Labelling all immigrants as low wage workers is not only only plain and simply ignorant but also implies that earning low wages is their goal.
These workers don’t sign their own paycheques, their employer does. Labelling all immigrants as low wage workers is not only only plain and simply ignorant but also implies that earning low wages is their goal.
lol, I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
The original issue we talked about is productivity.
Paying people more makes them more productive workers.
Canadian companies have successfully lobbied the government to create worker programs that allows them to bring in foreign workers and pay them less compared to what they would need to pay Canadians. This keeps wages deflated, and workers largely unhappy. Hence the unproductive worker.
It really isn't that hard to figure out.
But now you'll act like that isn't actually what I meant, even though others understood it.
Iggy knows exactly what I mean, but because I'm the one who said it, he intentionally being obtuse about it even though its something he agrees with.
Don’t flatter yourself, I don’t change my opinions of a statement based on who is saying it. I was trying to give you an opportunity to reflect and maybe better word what I think you were trying to say. If you want to play the victim over that then fill your boots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
lol, I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
The original issue we talked about is productivity.
Me fail english? That’s umpossible!
Quote:
Paying people more makes them more productive workers.
Yup.
Quote:
Canadian companies have successfully lobbied the government to create worker programs that allows them to bring in foreign workers and pay them less compared to what they would need to pay Canadians. This keeps wages deflated, and workers largely unhappy. Hence the unproductive worker.
Why is it that of all the policies designed to suppress wages it’s only the programs involving immigrants that you use as examples when other policies are far more impactful on wage growth? You’ve presented no data which suggests that immigration has a greater impact on wage suppression than legislation regarding minimum wages, better worker protections and unionization rues. So bringing it up to argue that you’re really concerned about wages in this country seems a little odd to me.
Quote:
It really isn't that hard to figure out.
But now you'll act like that isn't actually what I meant, even though others understood it.
You’re implying that immigrants are more likely to work for less and that that is a primary driver of wage suppression or at the very least one driver that you feel deserves a lot more attention than others. I don’t agree with that at all.
The primary driver is a general lack of worker protections which in turn provides little recourse for employees who are being exploited in the workplace. A TFW working in a place with good worker protections will be treated the same as a non TFW employee, that doesn’t suppress or lower wages and yet the TFW is still there. According to your theory that shouldn’t happen.
In places with better worker protections TFWs also won’t be able to “screw Canadians out of their jobs” as you put it, since the jobs of those Canadians would be better protected.
Whether intentionally or not you’re just using a century old talking point that has been used to distract people from focusing on what is really keeping their wages low. Sorry if you took offence to me trying to indirectly point that out, it honestly wasn’t intended to be a personal attack.
The primary driver is a general lack of worker protections which in turn provides little recourse for employees who are being exploited in the workplace. A TFW working in a place with good worker protections will be treated the same as a non TFW employee, that doesn’t suppress or lower wages and yet the TFW is still there. According to your theory that shouldn’t happen.
To this point, are unionized companies or at the very least companies with good worker protections using the TFW program?
I had always assumed (and this really does point to a personal bias) that the vast majority of companies who use the program are doing so exactly for the reason Azure is talking about? If it is only the shady/exploitive companies that are using the program than the scenario you made doesn't really exist.
I agree with the rest of your point, and would love to be enlightened otherwise, but I just see that program being used exactly as described; to bring in low skill workers willing to work for less than the average Canadian and thus suppressing wages. I agree there are a lot of other issues also suppressing wages, but I believe that without the TFW program, wages would definitely have to rise in order to attract the workers required.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
To this point, are unionized companies or at the very least companies with good worker protections using the TFW program?
Yes.
Quote:
I had always assumed (and this really does point to a personal bias) that the vast majority of companies who use the program are doing so exactly for the reason Azure is talking about? If it is only the shady/exploitive companies that are using the program than the scenario you made doesn't really exist.
There are literally multibillion dollar companies that use TFWs, whether one would consider them shady is open to discussion. I can assure you that the scenario I used as an example absolutely exists, frankly it’s also probably far more prevalent than most people would think. That isn’t to suggest that there are not smaller companies using TFWs as well.
Quote:
I agree with the rest of your point, and would love to be enlightened otherwise, but I just see that program being used exactly as described; to bring in low skill workers willing to work for less than the average Canadian and thus suppressing wages. I agree there are a lot of other issues also suppressing wages, but I believe that without the TFW program, wages would definitely have to rise in order to attract the workers required.
It’s a symptom of a bigger problem and the bigger problem is having a much greater overall impact on wage growth/stagnation. I’ve personally dealt with TFWs whose employers have stolen their wages and abused them in other ways, I’ve also seen this with non TFWs so while one could argue that there’s a higher likelihood of that happening to a TFW(and I’d agree with that) it’s not because of TFWs that these things happen and getting rid of them won’t fix it.
If given the choice between getting rid of the TFW program to allow the free market to inflate wages and increasing the minimum wage while expanding workers rights regardless of whether you keep or can the TFW program I’d bet on the latter having a much more impactful effect. It’d also help protect the jobs Azure claims to worried about from being “stolen” from Canadians.
The Following User Says Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
