11 ms·

People predicting the Canadian housing bubble would burst probably didn't think the government would resort to such absurdly high levels of immigration. https:

by jwond 3y ago

People predicting the Canadian housing bubble would burst probably didn't think the government would resort to such absurdly high levels of immigration. https://globalnews.ca/news/10386750/canada-41-million-population/ https://globalnews.ca/news/10386750/canada-41-million-popula...

skeeter2020 3y ago
I'm interested that you used the word "absurd" - how come? Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants - if it's paired with government policy that doesn't discourage growth...
- LegitShady 3y ago
  because the rapid growth has put so much pressure on house/rent prices, healthcare availability, general inflation on prices etc that overall the standard of living is falling for everyone.
- gonzo41 3y ago
  Poor immigrants now == booming growth over the medium term. Rich immigrants just spend the locals out of their homes. The west is importing the wrong type of migrants.
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    In canada's case. This was not the thing at all. It became a trend in china's rich circles to invest in canadian housing market as way to hide money from ccp and to flex your wealth. Chinese new money are prone to trends, and at scale it can have terrible results for city like Vancouver - quick google - "Chinese homebuyers accounted for nearly one-third of Vancouver's real estate market during 2015"
- phyrex 3y ago
  The argument is that the immigration rate has nearly doubled compared to the baseline (https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigra...) and that the country isn’t set up to absorb such a higher number of immigrants, not that immigration is bad as such
- 3vidence 3y ago
  First canada has one of the largest population growth rates in the world (very unusual for a G7 country) Second, Canada had absolutely terrible business development investment. There is no capital to make use of the increase in population and as a result the GDP per capita is going negative every quarter. Now that the quality of life in Canada is dropping, highly skilled Canadians are trying to get out as fast as they can making the Canadian market even less competitive. I don't think this combination of variables has been present in previous population booms (post WW2). I think we are in new territory here being pushed aggressively by a few companies trying to find even cheaper labor than what was possible.
- tmnvix 3y ago
  > ...if it's paired with government policy that doesn't discourage growth... Well, exactly. Bringing in large amounts of immigration to support an economy that that largely revolves around property transactions will contribute to an increase in property prices but will drag down GDP per capita and drive up infrastructure costs. This is NZ.
- TimPC 3y ago
  If Canada took in half the number of immigrants it does it would still have one of the largest rates in the world. We are massive outlier for how many we are taking in and all sorts of things aren't keeping up with the demand. The biggest two are home building rates and the health care sector but there are other problems as well.
  - robocat 3y ago
    Canada has 21% immigrants[1] - it is not an outlier compared to AU/NZ. Canada needs 1/2 again as many immigrants to match Australia which has 30% already. I'm in New Zealand with 27% foreign born. Net migration per 1,000 people (2023) figures[2] are: Australia 6.4, Canada 5.4, New Zealand 4.8 So Australia's immigrant population is also growing 20% faster than Canadas. (albeit emmigrant numbers included so perhaps I'm oversimplifying - I'm not familiar with Oz - but New Zealand has significant outflows). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_...
    - TimPC 3y ago
      The relevant number is not so much how many people are born outside the country which can include 90 year olds who came to the country in WW2. But rather the YoY population growth from immigration, which is a more accurate measure of recent influx. Canada welcomed 471,550 new permanent residents in 2023 and had an increase of roughly 550,000 temporary residents. That's a net influx of over 1M people for a country of over 40M. Most of Europe takes in about 1% of population in immigration not 2.5%. Australia targeted 195,000 permanent places and a total of 548,000 places across permanent and temporary programs. For a country of 26M that's 2.1% which is still extremely large but well below 2.5%. Also even if we use your numbers, Canada mostly accelerated immigration in 2023 and 2024 but already by 2021 our immigration percentage was up to 23% according to our census so your numbers are badly out of date for measuring recent immigration. In terms of reaching 30% with a net influx of over 1M immigrants a year over those two years, Canada could be as high as 27% immigrant now. Which even if it is lower than the raw total in Australia I'm sure we can acknowledge is a very rapid change that puts major strain on services.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  > Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants Ummm citations needed urgently. I would point out, immigration policy vs anyone without a passport is welcome are two complete scenarios that the only thing in common is that outsiders are coming in. Unchecked immigration policy as a good thing is a myth. People from clashing cultures dont mix naturally. Only results are natural ghetos and cultural clashes. Allowing undocumented people in without any due diligence, only advertises that undesirables from other countries can escape, or being dumped by more crafty foreign leaders. The immigration as a positive is strictly related to being the cause for brain-drain effect. You want intelligent hardworking people in, not just anyone. Also its better if people you are attracting are of similar heritage with similar values and culture. As those people assimilate to host cultures within a generation or two. The european countries don't really have distinctive minorities from their neighbors. The inter-eu immigrants withing generation or two basically become a host country citizens. I would point to Sweden and their current problems, also to the change of mind of the pro-unchecked immigration politicians. Who now are openly and publicly stating they were wrong.
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    > I would point to Sweden and their current problems, also to the change of mind of the pro-unchecked immigration politicians. Who now are openly and publicly stating they were wrong. Context for others: Sweden has no language, income, employment, or skills requirement <https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Becoming-a-Swedish-citizen/Apply-for-citizenship/Citizenship-for-adults.html https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...> for obtaining citizenship. In completely unrelated news, Arabic is now the second most spoken language in Sweden <https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=7047637a-c5f5-4297-9afa-a273dd443a9a https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_po...>.
    - estebank 3y ago
      > Sweden has no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for obtaining citizenship. Neither does the US. Like the US, it has a requirement of having lived in the country with residency for 5 years. In the US those 5 years are after getting a Green Card (permanent residency), not after getting the original dual intent visa that allowed for the Green Card. The Swedish residence requirements seem par for the course[1], if more straightforward than for the US. [1]: https://visaguide.world/europe/sweden-visa/residence-permit/ https://visaguide.world/europe/sweden-visa/residence-permit/
- rayiner 3y ago
  > Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants - if it's paired with government policy that doesn't discourage growth... Define "success?" Mass immigration to America from continental Europe eventually culminated in the 20th century in the dismantling of the American constitution and the republic the founders created. The resulting country is also completely ungovernable. Generations of cheap immigrant labor ultimately created a materially rich society (for some people), but whether it has been a "success" is quite debatable.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > The resulting country is also completely ungovernable. Another way to look at it: By any reasonable measure — and for all its indisputable problems — the U.S. is clearly the most successful large, multi-ethnic society in all of human history. Sure, it's always a work in progress. But let's consider the movie, not just the freeze-frame. When people can vote with their feet, it says something that net migration to the U.S. seems to dwarf that to, say, China [1] or India [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China [2] https://www.indiaspend.com/governance/millions-of-indians-seek-better-lives-abroad-but-india-treats-immigrants-poorly-study-711347 https://www.indiaspend.com/governance/millions-of-indians-se...
    - rayiner 3y ago
      The US already had the highest standard of living in the world at the time of independence, before it became a multi-ethnic society. The country de Tocqueville wrote about was an overwhelmingly British country. The subsequent trajectory of the US has been one of chipping away at that foundation. The accommodation of vast numbers of immigrants from societies that had no tradition of self government, and little in the way of unifying cultural traditions, created a top-down society that can scarcely be called America. Looking at migrants is a misleading indicator of preference, because the choice to emigrate is an aberrational one. Just 7-8% of people in south or east Asia would emigrate if they had the choice: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-mi....
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants That might be mixing up cause and effect…
- max51 3y ago
  To things in perspective, Canada has roughly the same number of immigrant and foreign student as the US but they are 1/10 the population. And regarding the house prices... last year they built around 200k new homes (all types, including condos) for >1M new Canadians.
- anamax 3y ago
  > Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants Are immigrants fungible?
wredue 3y ago
The immigration “issue” is actually because ain’t nobody having kids, and capitalism demands constant growth.

by jwond 3y ago

skeeter2020 3y ago

I'm interested that you used the word "absurd" - how come? Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants - if it's paired with government policy that doesn't discourage growth...

LegitShady 3y ago
because the rapid growth has put so much pressure on house/rent prices, healthcare availability, general inflation on prices etc that overall the standard of living is falling for everyone.
gonzo41 3y ago
Poor immigrants now == booming growth over the medium term. Rich immigrants just spend the locals out of their homes. The west is importing the wrong type of migrants.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  In canada's case. This was not the thing at all. It became a trend in china's rich circles to invest in canadian housing market as way to hide money from ccp and to flex your wealth. Chinese new money are prone to trends, and at scale it can have terrible results for city like Vancouver - quick google - "Chinese homebuyers accounted for nearly one-third of Vancouver's real estate market during 2015"
phyrex 3y ago
The argument is that the immigration rate has nearly doubled compared to the baseline (https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigra...) and that the country isn’t set up to absorb such a higher number of immigrants, not that immigration is bad as such
3vidence 3y ago
First canada has one of the largest population growth rates in the world (very unusual for a G7 country) Second, Canada had absolutely terrible business development investment. There is no capital to make use of the increase in population and as a result the GDP per capita is going negative every quarter. Now that the quality of life in Canada is dropping, highly skilled Canadians are trying to get out as fast as they can making the Canadian market even less competitive. I don't think this combination of variables has been present in previous population booms (post WW2). I think we are in new territory here being pushed aggressively by a few companies trying to find even cheaper labor than what was possible.
tmnvix 3y ago
> ...if it's paired with government policy that doesn't discourage growth... Well, exactly. Bringing in large amounts of immigration to support an economy that that largely revolves around property transactions will contribute to an increase in property prices but will drag down GDP per capita and drive up infrastructure costs. This is NZ.
TimPC 3y ago
If Canada took in half the number of immigrants it does it would still have one of the largest rates in the world. We are massive outlier for how many we are taking in and all sorts of things aren't keeping up with the demand. The biggest two are home building rates and the health care sector but there are other problems as well.
- robocat 3y ago
  Canada has 21% immigrants[1] - it is not an outlier compared to AU/NZ. Canada needs 1/2 again as many immigrants to match Australia which has 30% already. I'm in New Zealand with 27% foreign born. Net migration per 1,000 people (2023) figures[2] are: Australia 6.4, Canada 5.4, New Zealand 4.8 So Australia's immigrant population is also growing 20% faster than Canadas. (albeit emmigrant numbers included so perhaps I'm oversimplifying - I'm not familiar with Oz - but New Zealand has significant outflows). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_...
  - TimPC 3y ago
    The relevant number is not so much how many people are born outside the country which can include 90 year olds who came to the country in WW2. But rather the YoY population growth from immigration, which is a more accurate measure of recent influx. Canada welcomed 471,550 new permanent residents in 2023 and had an increase of roughly 550,000 temporary residents. That's a net influx of over 1M people for a country of over 40M. Most of Europe takes in about 1% of population in immigration not 2.5%. Australia targeted 195,000 permanent places and a total of 548,000 places across permanent and temporary programs. For a country of 26M that's 2.1% which is still extremely large but well below 2.5%. Also even if we use your numbers, Canada mostly accelerated immigration in 2023 and 2024 but already by 2021 our immigration percentage was up to 23% according to our census so your numbers are badly out of date for measuring recent immigration. In terms of reaching 30% with a net influx of over 1M immigrants a year over those two years, Canada could be as high as 27% immigrant now. Which even if it is lower than the raw total in Australia I'm sure we can acknowledge is a very rapid change that puts major strain on services.
me_me_me 3y ago
> Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants Ummm citations needed urgently. I would point out, immigration policy vs anyone without a passport is welcome are two complete scenarios that the only thing in common is that outsiders are coming in. Unchecked immigration policy as a good thing is a myth. People from clashing cultures dont mix naturally. Only results are natural ghetos and cultural clashes. Allowing undocumented people in without any due diligence, only advertises that undesirables from other countries can escape, or being dumped by more crafty foreign leaders. The immigration as a positive is strictly related to being the cause for brain-drain effect. You want intelligent hardworking people in, not just anyone. Also its better if people you are attracting are of similar heritage with similar values and culture. As those people assimilate to host cultures within a generation or two. The european countries don't really have distinctive minorities from their neighbors. The inter-eu immigrants withing generation or two basically become a host country citizens. I would point to Sweden and their current problems, also to the change of mind of the pro-unchecked immigration politicians. Who now are openly and publicly stating they were wrong.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  > I would point to Sweden and their current problems, also to the change of mind of the pro-unchecked immigration politicians. Who now are openly and publicly stating they were wrong. Context for others: Sweden has no language, income, employment, or skills requirement <https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Becoming-a-Swedish-citizen/Apply-for-citizenship/Citizenship-for-adults.html https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...> for obtaining citizenship. In completely unrelated news, Arabic is now the second most spoken language in Sweden <https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=7047637a-c5f5-4297-9afa-a273dd443a9a https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_po...>.
  - estebank 3y ago
    > Sweden has no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for obtaining citizenship. Neither does the US. Like the US, it has a requirement of having lived in the country with residency for 5 years. In the US those 5 years are after getting a Green Card (permanent residency), not after getting the original dual intent visa that allowed for the Green Card. The Swedish residence requirements seem par for the course[1], if more straightforward than for the US. [1]: https://visaguide.world/europe/sweden-visa/residence-permit/ https://visaguide.world/europe/sweden-visa/residence-permit/
rayiner 3y ago
> Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants - if it's paired with government policy that doesn't discourage growth... Define "success?" Mass immigration to America from continental Europe eventually culminated in the 20th century in the dismantling of the American constitution and the republic the founders created. The resulting country is also completely ungovernable. Generations of cheap immigrant labor ultimately created a materially rich society (for some people), but whether it has been a "success" is quite debatable.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > The resulting country is also completely ungovernable. Another way to look at it: By any reasonable measure — and for all its indisputable problems — the U.S. is clearly the most successful large, multi-ethnic society in all of human history. Sure, it's always a work in progress. But let's consider the movie, not just the freeze-frame. When people can vote with their feet, it says something that net migration to the U.S. seems to dwarf that to, say, China [1] or India [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China [2] https://www.indiaspend.com/governance/millions-of-indians-seek-better-lives-abroad-but-india-treats-immigrants-poorly-study-711347 https://www.indiaspend.com/governance/millions-of-indians-se...
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The US already had the highest standard of living in the world at the time of independence, before it became a multi-ethnic society. The country de Tocqueville wrote about was an overwhelmingly British country. The subsequent trajectory of the US has been one of chipping away at that foundation. The accommodation of vast numbers of immigrants from societies that had no tradition of self government, and little in the way of unifying cultural traditions, created a top-down society that can scarcely be called America. Looking at migrants is a misleading indicator of preference, because the choice to emigrate is an aberrational one. Just 7-8% of people in south or east Asia would emigrate if they had the choice: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-mi....
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants That might be mixing up cause and effect…
max51 3y ago
To things in perspective, Canada has roughly the same number of immigrant and foreign student as the US but they are 1/10 the population. And regarding the house prices... last year they built around 200k new homes (all types, including condos) for >1M new Canadians.
anamax 3y ago
> Historically nothing sets up a country better for future success than lots of immigrants Are immigrants fungible?

wredue 3y ago

The immigration “issue” is actually because ain’t nobody having kids, and capitalism demands constant growth.