4 ms·

Canada is committed to absurd levels of immigration relative to population. The crucial difference between population growth by birth versus by immigration is

by xienze 3y ago

Canada is committed to absurd levels of immigration relative to population. The crucial difference between population growth by birth versus by immigration is that you get ~20 years for housing supply to catch up to every new person. With growth by immigration, every new person needs housing _today_. The Canadian government isn’t creating housing at anywhere near the same rate as immigration. It’s really not complicated to understand what’s happening.

reducesuffering 3y ago
It's quite an outlier for having 500k immigrants per year, with a population of 39m. That's 1.25% per year. In 20 years, less than a generation, 25% of the population is entirely new. There's already a housing crisis and they're set to add 10 million people in 20 years? Build the housing first, otherwise you're just playing musical chairs and jettisoning people onto the street.
- likenesstheft 3y ago
  It’s a shell game. A less informed population won’t notice that the political dynasties continue to live luxurious pompous lives off everyone’s backs, and the informed will be too busy in an unfair competition over scraps. Unless there is a huge surplus of housing, college space, and well paying jobs…your leadership is selling you out in a gambit to take in people who will gladly keep voting for them in return for 10% of the typical Canadian lifestyle. You need new leaders who put citizens first, not last.
- Jerry2 3y ago
  Canada is taking in around 2 million immigrants per year. They're taking in over 900,000 students per year alone. [1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6948733 https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6948733
- unreal37 3y ago
  Updated numbers. Canada is on track to accept one million permanent residests in a year, PLUS 800,000 international students who tend to arrive and stay for years thus also need housing. Canada passed 40 million population this year and will hit 41 in a few months.
- CrimsonCape 3y ago
  Let's use 500,000 per year as a basis. A large percentage of immigrants are becoming pregnant the year they immigrate. Let's assume there is no interaction with the native population. For the example's sake, let's assume 500k is evenly split men and women. let's assume 40% of the immigrants have a child in the first year. Total immigrants divided by gender times 40% percent having a child in the first year: 500k / 2 * 0.4 = 100k That means a theoretical 500k immigration rate is actually 600k after one year. And, in fact, for the hypothetical sake assume the same thing happens in year two as the original women have a second child in year 2 and now the original population has become 700,000.
likenesstheft 3y ago
How come you construe more housing as being a government responsibility? That is strange, especially when your government is causing these issues in the first place. Housing supply normally gets built to satisfy demand. If the regulations are too stifling for construction to be profitable for builders and workers, you won’t have houses. Period. Magic funny money only works for so long before the house of cards comes crashing down. Interesting that some in Canada respond to the problem by expecting the government to do something all the time. They serve the poison and you want their antidote too? Canada’s leaders are doing a pretty great job of setting the stage for a housing takeover so they can conveniently come up with a solution that makes them more central and more powerful. Do they overly regulate construction and make it hard to do business?
- xienze 3y ago
  > How come you construe more housing as being a government responsibility? Well, official government policy is creating immense housing demand and adversely affecting citizens. If you want population growth via infinity immigration, you as the government need to do something about creating additional housing, simple as that.
- wnc3141 3y ago
  Can't speak to Canada's situation specifically, For your comment on housing as a government responsibility. You're correct that housing, for the most part, is privately financed and constructed. However the limiting agent in this environment is governments willingness to zone and permit new housing construction. The aggregate supply of housing is mostly a function of government policy. One issue is that while it may be popular at federal level to boost housing supply, housing policy is mostly enacted through local government.
  - likenesstheft 3y ago
    > However the limiting agent in this environment is governments willingness to zone and permit new housing construction. Yep. So they cause the problem in order to be the ones who conveniently have the solution. One that has the added benefit of keeping them more and more central and overreaching over your lives.
glouwbug 3y ago
60% of Canadians are home owners, the majority of those being baby boomers. Their retirement relies on downsizing and living off their remaining capital. The demand for buying their overly priced detached homes will exist so long as we immigrate the qualified uber-wealthy. It is a ponzi-scheme, and I have observed that anti-immigration retorts were met with racism up until recent years where the remaining 40% of Canadians renters learned they will never be able to buy

by xienze 3y ago

reducesuffering 3y ago

It's quite an outlier for having 500k immigrants per year, with a population of 39m. That's 1.25% per year. In 20 years, less than a generation, 25% of the population is entirely new. There's already a housing crisis and they're set to add 10 million people in 20 years? Build the housing first, otherwise you're just playing musical chairs and jettisoning people onto the street.

likenesstheft 3y ago
It’s a shell game. A less informed population won’t notice that the political dynasties continue to live luxurious pompous lives off everyone’s backs, and the informed will be too busy in an unfair competition over scraps. Unless there is a huge surplus of housing, college space, and well paying jobs…your leadership is selling you out in a gambit to take in people who will gladly keep voting for them in return for 10% of the typical Canadian lifestyle. You need new leaders who put citizens first, not last.
Jerry2 3y ago
Canada is taking in around 2 million immigrants per year. They're taking in over 900,000 students per year alone. [1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6948733 https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6948733
unreal37 3y ago
Updated numbers. Canada is on track to accept one million permanent residests in a year, PLUS 800,000 international students who tend to arrive and stay for years thus also need housing. Canada passed 40 million population this year and will hit 41 in a few months.
CrimsonCape 3y ago
Let's use 500,000 per year as a basis. A large percentage of immigrants are becoming pregnant the year they immigrate. Let's assume there is no interaction with the native population. For the example's sake, let's assume 500k is evenly split men and women. let's assume 40% of the immigrants have a child in the first year. Total immigrants divided by gender times 40% percent having a child in the first year: 500k / 2 * 0.4 = 100k That means a theoretical 500k immigration rate is actually 600k after one year. And, in fact, for the hypothetical sake assume the same thing happens in year two as the original women have a second child in year 2 and now the original population has become 700,000.

likenesstheft 3y ago

How come you construe more housing as being a government responsibility? That is strange, especially when your government is causing these issues in the first place. Housing supply normally gets built to satisfy demand. If the regulations are too stifling for construction to be profitable for builders and workers, you won’t have houses. Period. Magic funny money only works for so long before the house of cards comes crashing down. Interesting that some in Canada respond to the problem by expecting the government to do something all the time. They serve the poison and you want their antidote too? Canada’s leaders are doing a pretty great job of setting the stage for a housing takeover so they can conveniently come up with a solution that makes them more central and more powerful. Do they overly regulate construction and make it hard to do business?

xienze 3y ago
> How come you construe more housing as being a government responsibility? Well, official government policy is creating immense housing demand and adversely affecting citizens. If you want population growth via infinity immigration, you as the government need to do something about creating additional housing, simple as that.
wnc3141 3y ago
Can't speak to Canada's situation specifically, For your comment on housing as a government responsibility. You're correct that housing, for the most part, is privately financed and constructed. However the limiting agent in this environment is governments willingness to zone and permit new housing construction. The aggregate supply of housing is mostly a function of government policy. One issue is that while it may be popular at federal level to boost housing supply, housing policy is mostly enacted through local government.
- likenesstheft 3y ago
  > However the limiting agent in this environment is governments willingness to zone and permit new housing construction. Yep. So they cause the problem in order to be the ones who conveniently have the solution. One that has the added benefit of keeping them more and more central and overreaching over your lives.

glouwbug 3y ago

60% of Canadians are home owners, the majority of those being baby boomers. Their retirement relies on downsizing and living off their remaining capital. The demand for buying their overly priced detached homes will exist so long as we immigrate the qualified uber-wealthy. It is a ponzi-scheme, and I have observed that anti-immigration retorts were met with racism up until recent years where the remaining 40% of Canadians renters learned they will never be able to buy