What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
A poorly written opinion piece. It's great to see the globe and mail hasn't changed.
I expected something insightful. Instead it's just a mild regurgitation of traditional con ideas. The one point that's somewhat intriguing and possibly based in fact is that immigration isn't a panacea.
And it's paywalled, so I can't even pick it apart for myself.
It's now a foreign influence since it's owned by an American Republican.
The academic literature overwhelmingly finds that the level of immigration has a negligible or neutral overall impact on indicators that determine a country’s living standards: labour productivity, real wages, the employment rate, the population’s age structure and, crucially, GDP per capita.
Who ever said immigrations goal was short term immediate benefit?
Also I don't think this is true. I've always seen studies that show how immigrant's by the second generation are indistinguishable from third born and greater Canadians. But even better, they're job creators and often higher educated since immigrants value higher education more than natural born Canadians. The thing about higher education is it creates more economic stability during difficult economic times.
Some examples:
The second generation’s business ownership rates were lower than that of immigrants but higher than those of third plus generations—individuals with Canadian-born parents. This finding held for all three forms of business ownership investigated in this study: the ownership of (1) private incorporated firms with employees, (2) private incorporated firms in high-tech research and development (R&D)-intensive industries and (3) the primary self-employed (unincorporated).
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2021009/article/00003-eng.htm
immigrants who came to Canada as children participated in postsecondary education more often than the Canadian population as a whole, with those admitted at younger ages participating the most. Also, children admitted as economic immigrants fared better than the overall Canadian average from age 25 on. Then by age 30, children of sponsored and refugee families had median wages comparable to the overall population. These results were similar to what Stats Can found in a study for the 2018 tax year.
Canadians stopped having kids. Long before any economic struggle. Immigrants are just new tax payers. They're not short term solution they're a long term solution. Otherwise we just don't have the tax base to support Canada. Housing can and is being fixed. But we can't fix the dwindling tax base whenever we feel like. It had to start 20 years ago
I was with you until "housing is being fixed." Do you have some links to support this too? I'd love some reassurance if so.
The way I see it is regardless of party. Its the number one issue in Canada. Its going to get fixed. One way or another. The plan to fix is likely going to determine the next election
You say that as if the solution is just "people in charge say it should be fixed". What are the major causes of the housing crisis & see do you see it being fixed?
From what I've been reading from various sources, the problems we're seeing are a combination of deep-seated urban design failures, combined with the changes to investment rules over the last few decades. Neither are quick fixes.
The thing about higher education is it creates more economic stability during difficult economic times.
There is no country on earth with more higher education than Canada. Does that stability come from the doubling down on trading houses back and forth when there is nothing else?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The first is that freewheeling government spending, untethered by the defined limits of a credible fiscal anchor, is not “consumption” but rather “investment” that raises real incomes.
The government has relied on households and business taxpayers to fund subsidies for preferred recipients and has massively expanded the bureaucracy without much to show for it other than shrinking the relative size of the private sector.
The academic literature overwhelmingly finds that the level of immigration has a negligible or neutral overall impact on indicators that determine a country’s living standards: labour productivity, real wages, the employment rate, the population’s age structure and, crucially, GDP per capita.
Ramping up immigration to fill low-wage jobs instantly increases demand for things that take years to build, such as housing (especially rentals), roads, schools and hospitals.
The federal government’s immigration strategy is like believing Christmas dinner will be made easier if you invite more people because they can help with the washing up.
The country would benefit from modest (and co-ordinated) fiscal and monetary policy restraint to dampen inflation, alongside a productivity-focused agenda to expand the economy’s supply-side capacity, expedite business investment and innovation, scale domestic firms and ensure Canada can supply the world with responsibly produced natural resources and manufactured goods.
The original article contains 728 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!