6 ms·

> This means Canada brings in 25X the number of refugees per capita than the US does. > This means Canada brings in 20X the number of new immigrants per capita

> This means Canada brings in 25X the number of refugees per capita than the US does. > This means Canada brings in 20X the number of new immigrants per capita than the US does. You assert this as though it's just automatically a good thing with no actual analysis as to the impact on Canadians. What happens to the cultural cohesion, wages, and living standards of Canadians when immigration is at such a rapid pace? Is this not a factor? Or is the sheer availability of cheap, undercutting labour just a natural capitalist good that we should accept regardless of the hard to measure, intangible impacts?

koluna 6y ago
Canada is selective about immigrants (they have a points system), so all the things you call out are accounted for in their model - they bring in those their country needs. And from what I see from down south, they benefit a lot from it.
- drpgq 6y ago
  With housing prices in Canada now it’s terrible to be young. As a landlord it is working great for me when I can get $2000 a month for an apartment in Hamilton.
  - koluna 6y ago
    How is that related to immigration?
    - gruez 6y ago
      Presumably because immigrants (especially the rich variety) drive up demand for housing.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Demand for housing in Canada has in part been driven by foreign non-residents real estate speculators who are looking to park their money in Canada, and other places. New Zealand banned all non-resident foreigners from buying property there [1,2]. I would assume that if a population remains stable as a result of migration, that as many people are leaving houses as entering them, and there shouldn't be substantial pressure on housing prices. I don't have specific data for this. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/vancouver-b-c-tries-again-to-thwart-foreign-real-estate-speculators/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/vancouver-... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45199034 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45199034
- core-questions 6y ago
  Yes, this is correct, and is largely responsible for how Canada has been able to do so well despite high numbers. However, there is no guarantee of that program continuing perpetually, considering the criticism of such ideas pouring out of the USA. (Though we'd have to be really mad to replace it with a lottery...)
zo1 6y ago
It's just one of those things that's assumed as good and not to be questioned, not even with reasonable and genuine discourse.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 6y ago
The rate has been consistent since at least 1992. The wealth and income inequality in Canada is much lower than in the US. The standard of living in Canada is just as high as the US. Canada's Human Development Index is .922, 13th globally. The US HDI is .920, so a hair lower. 45% of the Canadian population lives in 6 of the 35 most livable cities in the world. "Social cohesion" doesn't come up, it's not an issue.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > "Social cohesion" doesn't come up, it's not an issue. Again, asserted, no evidence, no argument. Social cohesion is absolutely an issue. We feel it when we have no community organizations, don't know our neighbours, and have nothing gluing us to where we live. The famous Putnam study on social capital is a fine piece of evidence here. I believe we can surmount Putnam's identified problems, but only if we have a rate of influx that is sustainable. That means each newcomer has a chance to get proper language training, recertification, and actually integrate into a local community, which I'll somewhat arbitrarily define as having made some real friends out of the group of local or fully-assimilated people. This is the core requirement of being able to fully participate in social life. > The wealth and income inequality in Canada is much lower than in the US. Some of us would like it to stay that way, and we understand that bringing in a whole bunch of people to undercut the price of labour while eroding our hard-fought social capital is not the way to do that.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Putnam's study cover the US not Canada, if I'm not mistaken. Do you have any evidence that the rate of immigration is "too high" to sustain social cohesion in Canada? I would suggest that as you're the one that introduced it the burden of proof is on you. > Some of us would like it to stay that way, and we understand that bringing in a whole bunch of people to undercut the price of labour while eroding our hard-fought social capital is not the way to do that. The immigration rate of 1% per year has been the same since 1992 and I see no evidence of inequality increasing in conjunction with immigration. Do you have evidence? And once again, dramatically increasing wages by cutting off immigration increases income inequality. The GINI has remained a consistent .33 from the late 1990s through the present day, in spite of 1% per annum immigration. You're going to need to back your case if you want to sway my mind.

koluna 6y ago

Canada is selective about immigrants (they have a points system), so all the things you call out are accounted for in their model - they bring in those their country needs. And from what I see from down south, they benefit a lot from it.

drpgq 6y ago
With housing prices in Canada now it’s terrible to be young. As a landlord it is working great for me when I can get $2000 a month for an apartment in Hamilton.
- koluna 6y ago
  How is that related to immigration?
  - gruez 6y ago
    Presumably because immigrants (especially the rich variety) drive up demand for housing.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Demand for housing in Canada has in part been driven by foreign non-residents real estate speculators who are looking to park their money in Canada, and other places. New Zealand banned all non-resident foreigners from buying property there [1,2]. I would assume that if a population remains stable as a result of migration, that as many people are leaving houses as entering them, and there shouldn't be substantial pressure on housing prices. I don't have specific data for this. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/vancouver-b-c-tries-again-to-thwart-foreign-real-estate-speculators/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/vancouver-... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45199034 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45199034
core-questions 6y ago
Yes, this is correct, and is largely responsible for how Canada has been able to do so well despite high numbers. However, there is no guarantee of that program continuing perpetually, considering the criticism of such ideas pouring out of the USA. (Though we'd have to be really mad to replace it with a lottery...)

zo1 6y ago

It's just one of those things that's assumed as good and not to be questioned, not even with reasonable and genuine discourse.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

arcticbull 6y ago

The rate has been consistent since at least 1992. The wealth and income inequality in Canada is much lower than in the US. The standard of living in Canada is just as high as the US. Canada's Human Development Index is .922, 13th globally. The US HDI is .920, so a hair lower. 45% of the Canadian population lives in 6 of the 35 most livable cities in the world. "Social cohesion" doesn't come up, it's not an issue.

core-questions 6y ago
> "Social cohesion" doesn't come up, it's not an issue. Again, asserted, no evidence, no argument. Social cohesion is absolutely an issue. We feel it when we have no community organizations, don't know our neighbours, and have nothing gluing us to where we live. The famous Putnam study on social capital is a fine piece of evidence here. I believe we can surmount Putnam's identified problems, but only if we have a rate of influx that is sustainable. That means each newcomer has a chance to get proper language training, recertification, and actually integrate into a local community, which I'll somewhat arbitrarily define as having made some real friends out of the group of local or fully-assimilated people. This is the core requirement of being able to fully participate in social life. > The wealth and income inequality in Canada is much lower than in the US. Some of us would like it to stay that way, and we understand that bringing in a whole bunch of people to undercut the price of labour while eroding our hard-fought social capital is not the way to do that.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Putnam's study cover the US not Canada, if I'm not mistaken. Do you have any evidence that the rate of immigration is "too high" to sustain social cohesion in Canada? I would suggest that as you're the one that introduced it the burden of proof is on you. > Some of us would like it to stay that way, and we understand that bringing in a whole bunch of people to undercut the price of labour while eroding our hard-fought social capital is not the way to do that. The immigration rate of 1% per year has been the same since 1992 and I see no evidence of inequality increasing in conjunction with immigration. Do you have evidence? And once again, dramatically increasing wages by cutting off immigration increases income inequality. The GINI has remained a consistent .33 from the late 1990s through the present day, in spite of 1% per annum immigration. You're going to need to back your case if you want to sway my mind.