3 ms·

Does Canada not already have an issue with not enough jobs available?

repeekad 12d ago
The US says they don't want them, the point of the article is the new visa requirements (surprise) aren't converting into hiring US citizens but instead pushing the roles offshore.
- philipallstar 12d ago
  Well yes, what difference does it make to bring people over to the US vs them doing the work overseas? Bringing people over has negative consequences in the US (housing demand goes up; water demand goes up; power demand goes up) and in the person's home country (money doesn't flow to the local country; good people leave who should be staying and building their own country).
  - Ar-Curunir 12d ago
    The only population growth the US gets is from immigration. Cutting out skilled population growth is not a good idea!!
    - philipallstar 11d ago
      Skilled is a subset of what the US gets, and that at the detriment to local workers (and to the countries the skilled immigrants originate from). Though to the local business owner's they're great - much cheaper.
      - philipallstar 9d ago
        I regret my accidental apostrophe there, and now it's there forever.
- josefritzishere 12d ago
  [dead]
rayiner 12d ago
My uncle is a skilled immigrant to Canada (electrical engineer) and was never able to find an engineering job. They live in an immigrant-heavy subsidized housing neighborhood full of people in the same situation.
- orangedog 12d ago
  How do people get by when that happens? If you have no job after a period of time, what are your options?
  - rayiner 12d ago
    He tutors math and science, my aunt (who also has a graduate degree) works in a daycare. Canadian welfare is also quite generous. Their son is doing well, but I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point. It boils down to a circuitous and expensive way to direct government dollars to smart people who are likely to have smart kids. You could save yourself a step and just give lower income kids in Canada IQ tests and throw money at the promising ones.
    - AE9283F6D36A 11d ago
      > I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point It doesn't. Look at immigration numbers from 2000 to 2026 and overlay them with productivity per capita and GDP per capita.
- dh2022 12d ago
  Plus one. My parents experience as well in Montreal. My dad could not understand why Canada bothered to move him and his family and the keep him on welfare. BTW - life on welfare in Canada was 5 times better than life as an electrical engineer in România. My parents never stopped thinking it was a really good idea to migrate to Canada.
- Matthias247 12d ago
  I know it's not exactly the same. But would he consider becoming an electrician? Trade jobs are definitely getting more and more in demand, and the pay once established is definitely not worse than most engineer positions. Electricians in major canadian areas (e.g. Vancouver) charge 200$ per hour and more.
bijowo1676 12d ago
the candidate for Canadian PR has to secure a job offer beforehand, so the Canada's plan is that US tech workers move their US jobs to Canada, and big tech employers expand their existing tech offices in Canada, rather than being forced to shell out $100k to Donny. Why should US employers be forced to pay $100k to Donny or compromise for substandard smaller labor pool in the US and bear increased costs?
- theodric 12d ago
  Put another way: why should American employers be forced to hire Americans? If the labor pool is indeed substandard, they arguably have a vested interest in improving the quality of that labor pool rather than simply giving up on it. The $100k (and its consequences) are putting a finger on the scale in a nationalist manner to prefer local products. It's tariffs for people. It comes down to whether you have a globalist or nationalist mindset. Depending on which, you will come to a different conclusion about what to think. Should a government prioritize the individual success of citizens of its country, or the profitability of companies domiciled there (and therefore overall national economic performance)? Which approach, which tide lifts more boats by a meaningful amount? Which comports with a government's stated duties? You decide!
  - bijowo1676 12d ago
    Employers have only one job: to maximize profits, thats it. It is not employers' fault that US is unable to train tech workers, despite spending $30-40k per pupil in school system only to end up #27 in PISA ranking. The problem with all anti-H1B discourse is Lump Of Labor fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy ). The loudest people are the least educated about the consequences of blocking high skilled immigration.
    - happytoexplain 12d ago
      >Employers have only one job: to maximize profits, thats it. This is wrong. In practice, we bias toward this rule because it happens to align with benefit to society moreso than other rules (most of the time), but it is not the end, it is the means. The responsibility of employers (and all people participating in society) is to jointly maintain, and ideally improve, society. That's part of why government exists - to control harm-doers. Also, "the loudest people are the least educated" is probably true on most topics, but it's not a great way to make an argument. You should address the smartest people who disagree with you, not the dumbest (and that way, you also avoid being perceived as believing you are better than other people, which damns so much socially-bisected discourse at scale).
bunderbunder 12d ago
Economics is generally not a zero sum game. At least according to what they taught me in Econ 101, on a macroeconomic scale skilled workers tend to increase job availability. They spend a larger portion of their income on services, which has a positive multiplier effect.
- rbanffy 12d ago
  > skilled workers tend to increase job availability Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down.
  - bpt3 12d ago
    > Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down. Why would investments by employers result in higher compensation for employees? That said, median real individual income has increased substantially since the 1970s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n
  - davidw 12d ago
    Most of the 'squeeze' comes from things like housing and health care. The former driven by NIMBYs pulling the ladder up after them in so many desirable places.
    - philipallstar 12d ago
      A huge amount of housing demand comes from immigration. You can't call people who like their neighbourhoods "NIMBYs" for not wanting their nice area to triple in population to solve a problem. They aren't the problem. The demand is the problem.
BeetleB 12d ago
They always had that issue - going back 20 years. Nothing new at the moment.
vlyan 12d ago
one man's issue is another's man opportunity to overwork and underpay :) lower wages and higher rents are 99.99% of the reason for the West's immigration policies.

The US says they don't want them, the point of the article is the new visa requirements (surprise) aren't converting into hiring US citizens but instead pushing the roles offshore.

philipallstar 12d ago
Well yes, what difference does it make to bring people over to the US vs them doing the work overseas? Bringing people over has negative consequences in the US (housing demand goes up; water demand goes up; power demand goes up) and in the person's home country (money doesn't flow to the local country; good people leave who should be staying and building their own country).
- Ar-Curunir 12d ago
  The only population growth the US gets is from immigration. Cutting out skilled population growth is not a good idea!!
  - philipallstar 11d ago
    Skilled is a subset of what the US gets, and that at the detriment to local workers (and to the countries the skilled immigrants originate from). Though to the local business owner's they're great - much cheaper.
    - philipallstar 9d ago
      I regret my accidental apostrophe there, and now it's there forever.
josefritzishere 12d ago
[dead]

rayiner 12d ago

My uncle is a skilled immigrant to Canada (electrical engineer) and was never able to find an engineering job. They live in an immigrant-heavy subsidized housing neighborhood full of people in the same situation.

orangedog 12d ago
How do people get by when that happens? If you have no job after a period of time, what are your options?
- rayiner 12d ago
  He tutors math and science, my aunt (who also has a graduate degree) works in a daycare. Canadian welfare is also quite generous. Their son is doing well, but I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point. It boils down to a circuitous and expensive way to direct government dollars to smart people who are likely to have smart kids. You could save yourself a step and just give lower income kids in Canada IQ tests and throw money at the promising ones.
  - AE9283F6D36A 11d ago
    > I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point It doesn't. Look at immigration numbers from 2000 to 2026 and overlay them with productivity per capita and GDP per capita.
dh2022 12d ago
Plus one. My parents experience as well in Montreal. My dad could not understand why Canada bothered to move him and his family and the keep him on welfare. BTW - life on welfare in Canada was 5 times better than life as an electrical engineer in România. My parents never stopped thinking it was a really good idea to migrate to Canada.
Matthias247 12d ago
I know it's not exactly the same. But would he consider becoming an electrician? Trade jobs are definitely getting more and more in demand, and the pay once established is definitely not worse than most engineer positions. Electricians in major canadian areas (e.g. Vancouver) charge 200$ per hour and more.

bijowo1676 12d ago

the candidate for Canadian PR has to secure a job offer beforehand, so the Canada's plan is that US tech workers move their US jobs to Canada, and big tech employers expand their existing tech offices in Canada, rather than being forced to shell out $100k to Donny. Why should US employers be forced to pay $100k to Donny or compromise for substandard smaller labor pool in the US and bear increased costs?

theodric 12d ago
Put another way: why should American employers be forced to hire Americans? If the labor pool is indeed substandard, they arguably have a vested interest in improving the quality of that labor pool rather than simply giving up on it. The $100k (and its consequences) are putting a finger on the scale in a nationalist manner to prefer local products. It's tariffs for people. It comes down to whether you have a globalist or nationalist mindset. Depending on which, you will come to a different conclusion about what to think. Should a government prioritize the individual success of citizens of its country, or the profitability of companies domiciled there (and therefore overall national economic performance)? Which approach, which tide lifts more boats by a meaningful amount? Which comports with a government's stated duties? You decide!
- bijowo1676 12d ago
  Employers have only one job: to maximize profits, thats it. It is not employers' fault that US is unable to train tech workers, despite spending $30-40k per pupil in school system only to end up #27 in PISA ranking. The problem with all anti-H1B discourse is Lump Of Labor fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy ). The loudest people are the least educated about the consequences of blocking high skilled immigration.
  - happytoexplain 12d ago
    >Employers have only one job: to maximize profits, thats it. This is wrong. In practice, we bias toward this rule because it happens to align with benefit to society moreso than other rules (most of the time), but it is not the end, it is the means. The responsibility of employers (and all people participating in society) is to jointly maintain, and ideally improve, society. That's part of why government exists - to control harm-doers. Also, "the loudest people are the least educated" is probably true on most topics, but it's not a great way to make an argument. You should address the smartest people who disagree with you, not the dumbest (and that way, you also avoid being perceived as believing you are better than other people, which damns so much socially-bisected discourse at scale).

bunderbunder 12d ago

Economics is generally not a zero sum game. At least according to what they taught me in Econ 101, on a macroeconomic scale skilled workers tend to increase job availability. They spend a larger portion of their income on services, which has a positive multiplier effect.

rbanffy 12d ago
> skilled workers tend to increase job availability Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down.
- bpt3 12d ago
  > Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down. Why would investments by employers result in higher compensation for employees? That said, median real individual income has increased substantially since the 1970s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n
- davidw 12d ago
  Most of the 'squeeze' comes from things like housing and health care. The former driven by NIMBYs pulling the ladder up after them in so many desirable places.
  - philipallstar 12d ago
    A huge amount of housing demand comes from immigration. You can't call people who like their neighbourhoods "NIMBYs" for not wanting their nice area to triple in population to solve a problem. They aren't the problem. The demand is the problem.

BeetleB 12d ago

They always had that issue - going back 20 years. Nothing new at the moment.

vlyan 12d ago

one man's issue is another's man opportunity to overwork and underpay :) lower wages and higher rents are 99.99% of the reason for the West's immigration policies.