The quiet Americans who are Canada’s invisible immigrants
andyt @ Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:54 pm
Yogi Yogi:
Boots, andy obviously doesn't understand the dynamics of starting/building up/running a small business. Small business being the economic back-bone of Alberta.
Take my business for eg. Flooring. Typical job.-100 sq. yds carpet install @ $5.50 sq yd.. In my opinion, this type/amount is worth a hell of a lot more, but $5.50 is all the market will bear! ie; the customer refuses to pay any more than that.
This amount of carpet will do a typical 3 br. bungalow. Livingroom-diningroom-3 br-hallway and 12 stairs and stringers. This is a full days work for 2 1 installer and 1 'helper' who has at least some experience, (but no certifications).
Paying said helper minimum of $18.00 per hour ( the min for this type of work in my industry) =180.00 per day.
Deduct the $180.00 from $550.00 leaves $370.00.
From the $370.00 deduct thebasic supplies that I have to pay for:
Seam tape $11.00- Smoothedge $37.00-Staples & nails $ 17.00- non-reusable knife blades $12.00-contact cement $8.00- for a total of $85.00. Deduct that from $370.00 leaves a balance of $285.00.
Now, the toal job pays out @ $550.00, this also includes going to the warehouse and measuring from the full roll of carpet, making all the cuts, loading and hauling them to the jobsite in a van which is owned and paid for by the installer- all the while, the helper is being paid $18.00/hr. The installer isn't earning any money yet! Not until carpet is actually being installed.
So let's now include the van, gas, insurance, registration etc.
Not done yet!
What about all the tools required? Who do you think pays for them? Let see now. Basic tools for this job;
Carpet kicker-$165.00 Straightedge-$107.00-Seaming iron and electric stapler-$450.00-hammer stapler-$140.00-T square $40.00 Two FULL SETS of various hand tools as well.-knee pads-$60.00. Various other hand tools-ie; ONE Airway knife is $42.00!
Eventually, these tools do wear out. Guess who gets to replace them!
So while the helper is getting paid $180.00 for the day without supplying anything-once the carpet is 'in place' the helper spends a lot of time doing SFA or picking up scraps etc.
the installer ( in my case, Inter-provincially Certified Journeyman) is supplying everything else AND working the same 10 hour day for a gross wage of $28.50! So, if I have the opportunity of hiring someone as a helper, for Ab min wage, I'll do so!
All busnesses are expensive to run. Not just the one I'm in.
So, do the math andy. Maybe then you will have a better understanding of what Bootlegga is trying to explain to you!
Easy to see why, in my particulat situation, I stay with the 'one man jobs', mainly custom hardwood and/or tile, or service work.
wah wah wah small business. My parents used to own a smallish business. They always paid way more than minimum wage, and my parents went from nothing to multi-millionaires. They paid better wages because they wanted to hire and retain good people, and it worked out very well.
If there are is no surplus labor desperate for any job out there, wages will go up. And so will the wages paid by your competitors. You'll have to charge a bit more for your service or product, but so will your competitors. It all works out, and the workers get to make a decent living, instead of just making you rich. Try working long hours, living really cheaply and putting every cent back in the business. Before you know it, you'll be rich too and can kick back. Of course my parents had the advantage of me being an only child and out of the house at 16 to make my own way, so they didn't have to finance my education or what not. They did buy me a Corolla when I was in uni tho. But they were driving Cadillacs by that time.
bootlegga @ Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:43 am
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Fine, you read newspapers. Use Google to find evidence yourself. It's not my job to find evidence to support your claims, that's yours and yours alone. If you're too lazy to do so, then I'll just have to assume that you are either incorrect (maybe it was $1.8 billion not 18 as you claim), or that you read it in an op/ed piece, which given your biased source (Vancouver Sun), wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Shit jobs are shit jobs because either most people don't want to do them and/or they need zero skill to do. How much skill does it take to turn on a gas pump, push a mop, or scoop ice cream at Baskin Robbins? Not much, and I know because at some point in my life, I've done all of them. Those jobs usually only attract Canadians with no skills (high school students) or those who are semi-retired/retired and looking for a few extra bucks to help pay bills. Shit jobs are like public transit, once you are no longer forced to use it, you don't (I've yet meet someone who dreamed of working at McDonald's their entire life).
Granted there are cases where a labour shortage where shit jobs command huge salaries. Fort McMurray is proof of that. The average wage for shit jobs there is somewhere around $15/hour (almost double Alberta's minimum wage BTW). So if high salaries are all that are necessary for a good standard of living, then burger flippers in Ft Mac should be living high off the hog, right? That ain't the case, because even though they earn big bucks, the cost of everything else is through the roof too, from rent to laundry detergent to a night out on the town. Part of that is due to high demand/low supply, but part of it is also due to the inflation of salaries there in the past decade.
I'm not against anyone getting a raise or a decent salary. Anyone who works hard and shows that they deserve a good wage, whether it's through dedication and hard work or extra training/schooling, deserves it. But there is no sane reason to suddenly decide that every janitor, burger flipper and gas station clerk in the country go from around $8 an hour to $12 overnight. That would cause massive inflation and wipe out their raise overnight anyways.
Shit jobs are shit jobs because either most people don't want to do them and/or they need zero skill to do. How much skill does it take to turn on a gas pump, push a mop, or scoop ice cream at Baskin Robbins? Not much, and I know because at some point in my life, I've done all of them. Those jobs usually only attract Canadians with no skills (high school students) or those who are semi-retired/retired and looking for a few extra bucks to help pay bills. Shit jobs are like public transit, once you are no longer forced to use it, you don't (I've yet meet someone who dreamed of working at McDonald's their entire life).
Granted there are cases where a labour shortage where shit jobs command huge salaries. Fort McMurray is proof of that. The average wage for shit jobs there is somewhere around $15/hour (almost double Alberta's minimum wage BTW). So if high salaries are all that are necessary for a good standard of living, then burger flippers in Ft Mac should be living high off the hog, right? That ain't the case, because even though they earn big bucks, the cost of everything else is through the roof too, from rent to laundry detergent to a night out on the town. Part of that is due to high demand/low supply, but part of it is also due to the inflation of salaries there in the past decade.
I'm not against anyone getting a raise or a decent salary. Anyone who works hard and shows that they deserve a good wage, whether it's through dedication and hard work or extra training/schooling, deserves it. But there is no sane reason to suddenly decide that every janitor, burger flipper and gas station clerk in the country go from around $8 an hour to $12 overnight. That would cause massive inflation and wipe out their raise overnight anyways.
You want to doubt the 18 bill, that's up to you. If the Vancouver Sun is biased, exactly what unbiased source do you get your immigration information from?
Shit jobs don't require much skill. They're still hard work and people who do them should be paid a living wage. Nice excuse about kids and seniors doing them. Total bullshit of course. You brought up taxi drivers yourself - how many kids and seniors do that? Janitors? Security guards? On and on.
The way to raise wages for low paid jobs is not to by fiat but by supply and demand. Reduce the supply, and voila, wages go up. Why are you so eager to live in a society with huge income differentials? Do you not see the social problems that causes?
Quoting from the Sun on immigration is like quoting from the Tyee on the environment/war in Iraq/etc - hardly an objective source. I might as well ask a Tea Partier what they think of Obama.
Had you cited a semi-reliable source (like a CanWest paper or something less biased), I'd be inclined to believe you. Given the biased tripe that the Sun chain puts out, I'm not.
Like I said look at how well a lack of labour has done for Fort McMurray. You should move up there and work for $15/hour (you said $12 would be a living wage previously) and see how well you do. A shortage of labour might rapidly increase wages, but it also causes inflation in many other areas - negatively affecting the standard of living of those very people you're trying to help. If I honestly thought that raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour would help out people in shit jobs, I'd support it.
Many shit jobs are done by students and the retired. Any visit to McDonalds or the mall will prove me right. Yes, there are shit jobs like cab driver and janitor that are done by immigrants. But that's not because an immigrant screwed a Canadian out of either job. It's because Canadians don't want dirty and/or dangerous jobs (taxi driver is usually ranked in the top 10 dangerous jobs). Most people want to work 8-4/9-5 in an office, have the weekends off and have a good life, not scrub toilets or drive drunk assholes home from the bar.
Taxi drivers can and do make a livable wage (my father did for years), but it's long, hard work. He routinely worked 70+ hours a week. So can janitors, as long as they are independent contractors and not working for someone else. Even security guards can make a decent wage if they work for the right company (like the Commissionaires - largely semi-retired/retired military folks BTW) but I would still call all of those jobs shit jobs because none of them require much training or skill to do.
And I fully agree that they are hard work. I've done lots of those shit jobs - janitor, taxi driver, fast food cook, as well as semi-skilled jobs like call centre operator and short order cook. How did I survive? Did I demand someone pay me twice what I was making then?
No.
I worked hard, got promotions whenever and wherever I could and saved enough so i could go back to school and finish my bachelors degree. Then I worked my ass off in call centres for several years (I'll freely admit I didn't like doing that, but it made me a better person) until I got a decent job. Then I got my Masters, and now I'm doing quite well.
When I was young and lived at home while going to university, there were several immigrant families on my block (one from Portugal, one from the Philippines, and one from Vietnam or China). Their solution to low wages was to work harder, not demand that someone pay them more than everyone else. And you know what, today they all have their houses paid off, drive nice cars, have kids in college, and several of them have re-certified for their former professional careers.
If you want to succeed in Canada, it's relatively easy - work hard and opportunities will usually present themselves. If you naively expect other people to look out for your own best interests, then you're gonna be waiting a long fucking time.
EyeBrock @ Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:51 am
Too right Boots. I tried repping you but I've been agreeing too much with you lately. Rep him somebody.
2Cdo @ Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:53 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
If you want to succeed in Canada, it's relatively easy - work hard and opportunities will usually present themselves. If you naively expect other people to look out for your own best interests, then you're gonna be waiting a long fucking time.
That bit alone is worth a positive rep!
2Cdo @ Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:54 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Too right Boots. I tried repping you but I've been agreeing too much with you lately. Rep him somebody.
Done.
andyt @ Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:20 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Quoting from the Sun on immigration is like quoting from the Tyee on the environment/war in Iraq/etc - hardly an objective source. I might as well ask a Tea Partier what they think of Obama.
Had you cited a semi-reliable source (like a CanWest paper or something less biased), I'd be inclined to believe you. Given the biased tripe that the Sun chain puts out, I'm not.
Er, methinks you're talking out of your ass. The Vancouver Sun was, until recently part of CanWest, but CanWest was bought out by a consortium led by the former editor of the National Post, another CanWest newspaper. Since you seem to have a high opinion of CanWest, can I take it that you may now take what was written there as more likely to have some merit? I thought you would attack the study because it was done by the Fraser Institute, a bunch of right wing loonies. Since the editorial page editor where this was published is a former fellow of the Fraser Insitute, there must be some collusion here.
I was surprised that the Fraser Institute would come out against immigration because it lowers wages - I thought they were all about lower wages for the peons. But they made the perfectly reasonable argument that higher wages bring higher revenues to the govt in taxes, even at a lower tax rate. Since people with higher wages are also far less drain on the govt this seems like a good idea all around.
The article wasn't hard to find at all:
$1:
Immigration policies need public, not political debate
http://www.vancouversun.com/Immigration+policies+need+public+political+debate/2268181/story.html
$1:
The most fundamental reason is that present immigrant selection procedures have made their average incomes after 10 years equal to only 80 per cent of the income of comparable Canadian workers
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
I hope this will give you something to chew on.
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
I hope this will give you something to chew on.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:45 am
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Quoting from the Sun on immigration is like quoting from the Tyee on the environment/war in Iraq/etc - hardly an objective source. I might as well ask a Tea Partier what they think of Obama.
Had you cited a semi-reliable source (like a CanWest paper or something less biased), I'd be inclined to believe you. Given the biased tripe that the Sun chain puts out, I'm not.
Had you cited a semi-reliable source (like a CanWest paper or something less biased), I'd be inclined to believe you. Given the biased tripe that the Sun chain puts out, I'm not.
Er, methinks you're talking out of your ass. The Vancouver Sun was, until recently part of CanWest, but CanWest was bought out by a consortium led by the former editor of the National Post, another CanWest newspaper. Since you seem to have a high opinion of CanWest, can I take it that you may now take what was written there as more likely to have some merit? I thought you would attack the study because it was done by the Fraser Institute, a bunch of right wing loonies. Since the editorial page editor where this was published is a former fellow of the Fraser Insitute, there must be some collusion here.
I was surprised that the Fraser Institute would come out against immigration because it lowers wages - I thought they were all about lower wages for the peons. But they made the perfectly reasonable argument that higher wages bring higher revenues to the govt in taxes, even at a lower tax rate. Since people with higher wages are also far less drain on the govt this seems like a good idea all around.
The article wasn't hard to find at all:
$1:
Immigration policies need public, not political debate
http://www.vancouversun.com/Immigration+policies+need+public+political+debate/2268181/story.html
$1:
The most fundamental reason is that present immigrant selection procedures have made their average incomes after 10 years equal to only 80 per cent of the income of comparable Canadian workers
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
I hope this will give you something to chew on.
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
I hope this will give you something to chew on.
My apologies, I mistakenly thought the Vancouver Sun was affiliated with the Sun chain (like the Edmonton Sun, Calgary Sun, etc). If you've ever read one of those 'newspapers', you'd understand what I mean about biased. I don't have a high opinion of Canwest, it's just that my opinion of the Sun chain is very, very low.
Interesting read, however, as the op/ed notes, it is ESTIMATED to cost $18 billion. You also made it sound like Canada spends $18 billion annually, but the author notes that this includes education and health care costs (I agree with pension costs), which are necessities for any Canadian, not just immigrants.
The biggest problem I have with your article is that it is an editorial, and not a news item. That alone shows that the author in not necessarily objective. The fact that he is from the Fraser Institute further casts a shadow potentially over his objectivity.
Still, it's an interesting read and I'll keep those 'facts' in mind.
andyt @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:59 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
Er, methinks you're talking out of your ass. The Vancouver Sun was, until recently part of CanWest, but CanWest was bought out by a consortium led by the former editor of the National Post, another CanWest newspaper. Since you seem to have a high opinion of CanWest, can I take it that you may now take what was written there as more likely to have some merit? I thought you would attack the study because it was done by the Fraser Institute, a bunch of right wing loonies. Since the editorial page editor where this was published is a former fellow of the Fraser Insitute, there must be some collusion here.
I was surprised that the Fraser Institute would come out against immigration because it lowers wages - I thought they were all about lower wages for the peons. But they made the perfectly reasonable argument that higher wages bring higher revenues to the govt in taxes, even at a lower tax rate. Since people with higher wages are also far less drain on the govt this seems like a good idea all around.
The article wasn't hard to find at all:
$1:
Immigration policies need public, not political debate
http://www.vancouversun.com/Immigration+policies+need+public+political+debate/2268181/story.html
$1:
The most fundamental reason is that present immigrant selection procedures have made their average incomes after 10 years equal to only 80 per cent of the income of comparable Canadian workers
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
I hope this will give you something to chew on.
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
I hope this will give you something to chew on.
Interesting read, however, as the op/ed notes, it is ESTIMATED to cost $18 billion. You also made it sound like Canada spends $18 billion annually, but the author notes that this includes education and health care costs (I agree with pension costs), which are necessities for any Canadian, not just immigrants.
The biggest problem I have with your article is that it is an editorial, and not a news item. That alone shows that the author in not necessarily objective. The fact that he is from the Fraser Institute further casts a shadow potentially over his objectivity.
Still, it's an interesting read and I'll keep those 'facts' in mind.
Ok, there's some debating room for the exact figure, which nobody seems to have. The point is they take out more than they put in, and this is on an annual basis. It includes all govt money going to immigrants.
Poor people already in Canada also cost the govt money. I'm sure there is a cutoff point where someone earning low wages takes out more in benefits than they pay in taxes. But that's the point of the article - do we want to import more poor people who take out more than they pay in, or do we want to raise the wages of the working poor in Canada, so they wind up paying more taxes, contributing more to govt funds?
Some of what he says has been stated by others too - the fact we can't import enough immigrants to make a huge diff in the aging demographics of the country. Others have expressed it as needing to triple or quadruple our current immigration levels to make a dent. Let's see - 1,000,000 immigrants per year for 40 years = only 40 million - we still wouldn't get to the figure he cites by 2050. But I would hate to see the immigration in Vancouver triple or quadruple - our housing costs are already insane. It forces people to live further and further away from their work, and our transit can't keep up with demand and the freeways are plugged. Also all those healthcare consumers to a system that's already reeling, while they don't pay sufficient taxes to support it.
I have no love for the Fraser institute. I was just very surprised to read something like this coming from them. I thought they were all about being neocons, which is about gobalization and paying the lowest wages possible, except for the elite of course, which they consider themselves to be.
EyeBrock @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:23 am
I've never seen the great advantages of just letting anybody in to Canada. Especially letting people in who can't speak either official language well enough to communicate in a work place.
I’m not saying that we should just let Anglos and Frenchies in but having people who we can understand is of some benefit.
We should be picking the best the world has to offer if the world wants to come here. We can be choosy but we are not.
Immigration should be advantageous to Canada. Having immigrants come here that can’t communicate isn’t an advantage.
I agree with the whole ‘low-pay’ cause and effect thing. We should stop importing people to fill low pay jobs and pay Canadians born in Canada a wage that will make the jobs somewhat more viable for them.
As andy pointed out, there are many other costs involved in bringing immigrants to Canada that are uneducated or lack the communication skills and relevant qualifications to get jobs that they did in where ever they came from.
Also, why not encourage Canadians to have more kids with tax breaks? Maybe I would have had another with a little help from the CRA.
It has to be cheaper than importing other countries kids to Canada.
andyt @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:44 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I've never seen the great advantages of just letting anybody in to Canada. Especially letting people in who can't speak either official language well enough to communicate in a work place.
I’m not saying that we should just let Anglos and Frenchies in but having people who we can understand is of some benefit.
We should be picking the best the world has to offer if the world wants to come here. We can be choosy but we are not.
Immigration should be advantageous to Canada. Having immigrants come here that can’t communicate isn’t an advantage.
I agree with the whole ‘low-pay’ cause and effect thing. We should stop importing people to fill low pay jobs and pay Canadians born in Canada a wage that will make the jobs somewhat more viable for them.
As andy pointed out, there are many other costs involved in bringing immigrants to Canada that are uneducated or lack the communication skills and relevant qualifications to get jobs that they did in where ever they came from.
Also, why not encourage Canadians to have more kids with tax breaks? Maybe I would have had another with a little help from the CRA.
It has to be cheaper than importing other countries kids to Canada.
I’m not saying that we should just let Anglos and Frenchies in but having people who we can understand is of some benefit.
We should be picking the best the world has to offer if the world wants to come here. We can be choosy but we are not.
Immigration should be advantageous to Canada. Having immigrants come here that can’t communicate isn’t an advantage.
I agree with the whole ‘low-pay’ cause and effect thing. We should stop importing people to fill low pay jobs and pay Canadians born in Canada a wage that will make the jobs somewhat more viable for them.
As andy pointed out, there are many other costs involved in bringing immigrants to Canada that are uneducated or lack the communication skills and relevant qualifications to get jobs that they did in where ever they came from.
Also, why not encourage Canadians to have more kids with tax breaks? Maybe I would have had another with a little help from the CRA.
It has to be cheaper than importing other countries kids to Canada.
That's the nub of it right there. It's become where it's almost considered a right to immigrate to Canada and you must be a racist if you disagree. Immigration is all about what's of benefit for this country. The refugee system is there to take care of people who really need help, where consideration of what's best for Canada comes second.
The system should be flexible enough so that we take what we need - in times of high unemployment we would take less or none, open the doors when we we really need them. But first we should be training Canadians for any jobs that are going begging. Having less working poor Canadians will actually increase our birth rate because it makes it more feasible for women in families who earn more to take time off for kids. Those kids will grow up better educated and with less social problems that poor kids, making better citizens. And, as has been pointed out, people who earn more contribute more to govt income to make for a decent social system. It's not all about welfare, our social system primarily benefits the middle class with education, health care etc.
The place to start is the family reunification class. You can bring in any underage kids and your spouse, that's it.
EyeBrock @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:03 am
I'm in total agreement with you on this andy.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:44 pm
andyt andyt:
The system should be flexible enough so that we take what we need - in times of high unemployment we would take less or none, open the doors when we we really need them. But first we should be training Canadians for any jobs that are going begging. Having less working poor Canadians will actually increase our birth rate because it makes it more feasible for women in families who earn more to take time off for kids. Those kids will grow up better educated and with less social problems that poor kids, making better citizens. And, as has been pointed out, people who earn more contribute more to govt income to make for a decent social system. It's not all about welfare, our social system primarily benefits the middle class with education, health care etc.
I simply don't see anyone ever paying someone well enough to work at McDonalds (or as a security guard, janitor, etc) to create a living wage that you can raise a family on.
It sounds great on the surface, but what do you tell doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc who spent a helluva lot of time, effort, and money getting a great education so they could be well off, that society has decided to raise the wages of those in unskilled jobs, but not their wages also (because if you raise both, it's just the status quo)? Once you do that, their formerly great salary (say $100-150 grand per year) is suddenly worth a lot less because of the increase employers face in labour costs.
How do you justify taking away from those you say pay the most taxes and giving it to those who pay the least?
And how do you stop future generation's kids from saying, "What do I need an education for, I can work at McDonald's and still do just fine?" So much for our competitiveness as a country.
I like the idea of having flexible immigration numbers, that makes sense. I don't know why they ever changed it in the first place.
andyt andyt:
The place to start is the family reunification class. You can bring in any underage kids and your spouse, that's it.
Like I said, in many cases, grandma and grandpa allow both parents to enter the workforce, thereby raising the family's standard of living. And given that it takes close to five years for it to occur, it's not like they're given high priority (they're given the lowest actually).
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:24 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Like I said, in many cases, grandma and grandpa allow both parents to enter the workforce, thereby raising the family's standard of living. And given that it takes close to five years for it to occur, it's not like they're given high priority (they're given the lowest actually).
I'm missing the logic in that statement. Having gramma and grampa there will make the family unit better off financially because both parents can work? But then who's taking care of gramma and grampa? The family unit size just increased by 33%. Having one extra person working, doesn't seem to make up for having 2 extra bodies to pay for. It's not like they have free daycare as a result, they have costs associated with 2 extra bodies like food, utilities, transportation, clothing, personal care/hygiene products etc etc.
Yogi @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:28 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
The system should be flexible enough so that we take what we need - in times of high unemployment we would take less or none, open the doors when we we really need them. But first we should be training Canadians for any jobs that are going begging. Having less working poor Canadians will actually increase our birth rate because it makes it more feasible for women in families who earn more to take time off for kids. Those kids will grow up better educated and with less social problems that poor kids, making better citizens. And, as has been pointed out, people who earn more contribute more to govt income to make for a decent social system. It's not all about welfare, our social system primarily benefits the middle class with education, health care etc.
I simply don't see anyone ever paying someone well enough to work at McDonalds (or as a security guard, janitor, etc) to create a living wage that you can raise a family on.
It sounds great on the surface, but what do you tell doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc who spent a helluva lot of time, effort, and money getting a great education so they could be well off, that society has decided to raise the wages of those in unskilled jobs, but not their wages also (because if you raise both, it's just the status quo)? Once you do that, their formerly great salary (say $100-150 grand per year) is suddenly worth a lot less because of the increase employers face in labour costs.
How do you justify taking away from those you say pay the most taxes and giving it to those who pay the least?
And how do you stop future generation's kids from saying, "What do I need an education for, I can work at McDonald's and still do just fine?" So much for our competitiveness as a country.
I like the idea of having flexible immigration numbers, that makes sense. I don't know why they ever changed it in the first place.
andyt andyt:
The place to start is the family reunification class. You can bring in any underage kids and your spouse, that's it.
Like I said, in many cases, grandma and grandpa allow both parents to enter the workforce, thereby raising the family's standard of living. And given that it takes close to five years for it to occur, it's not like they're given high priority (they're given the lowest actually).
The problem with the 'Grandma & Grandpa' idea is that in the past it worked cuz Grandma & Grandpa worked their asses off and contributed to ei-CPP etc. and so rightfully deserve/d to draw from it and either contribute a few bucks to the household or contribute by staying home and looking after the grandkids, but todays dynamics would have Grandma & Grandpa immigrating to Canada after the age of 65, having contributed NOTHING to Canada, AND being able to draw ALL BENEFITS AFTER ONLY BEING HERE FOR A FEW YEARS.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:03 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Like I said, in many cases, grandma and grandpa allow both parents to enter the workforce, thereby raising the family's standard of living. And given that it takes close to five years for it to occur, it's not like they're given high priority (they're given the lowest actually).
I'm missing the logic in that statement. Having gramma and grampa there will make the family unit better off financially because both parents can work? But then who's taking care of gramma and grampa? The family unit size just increased by 33%. Having one extra person working, doesn't seem to make up for having 2 extra bodies to pay for. It's not like they have free daycare as a result, they have costs associated with 2 extra bodies like food, utilities, transportation, clothing, personal care/hygiene products etc etc.
Maybe in Canada, grandparents are a liability, but for the rest of the world, they help out around the house; cooking, cleaning, helping to raise the kids, etc. Yes, some costs go up (food utilities, etc), but it's not like they jump 50%, it's more like 10-15%. Paying a few extra bucks for food is nothing compared to what day care costs. I don't know about Windsor, but here in Edmonton, a decent day care runs from about $750 - 1200 per month per kid (depending on age, location, etc). If you've got two or three kids to take care of, that adds up in a hurry...
I'll give you an example from two immigrant families I know. One is recent, and one is from my childhood.
When I was in elementary school, my friend's family was allowed to sponsor their grandparents to come over. So, when they got here, grandma and grandpa starting cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids, while both parents went to work. They went from a one income family to a two income family, and their standard of living rose dramatically.
An immigrant I used to work with from India arrived here last year with his wife and three kids. Only one of the kids is school age, so they are faced with either paying $750-1200/month per kid for daycare, or having one parent stay home and take care of the kids. The husband works and earns $3000 a month, while the wife stays home and takes care of the kids. Even if she earned the same salary as her husband, most, if not all of it, would go to taxes and daycare, for a zero sum gain. So she decided to stay home. However, if in about 5 years, they get the right to sponsor one (or more) of their parents, then both can go to work and make $6000 a month, vastly increasing the family's standard of living.
That's what I mean about having grandma/grandpa come to Canada. Yes, TEN years after they arrive (assuming they are still alive - which given their already advanced age is no guarantee), they will qualify for OAS (but not CPP unless they worked in Canada). In the meantime, for a full DECADE, they will have helped their kids to earn far more than would have been possible if they had not come (and by corollary, pay more taxes). In some rare cases, one grandparent might even get a PT job in a restaurant or something (this is where Andy's complaint about them stealing low wage shit jobs comes in).
I know it sounds hokey, but that is why every immigrant family I've ever known (a dozen or so) sponsors their grandparents to come to Canada. Well that and the wish for a better life for their parents too.