Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7

Immigration does pay a part. Even the people that Khar thinks have the one true answer admit that immigration has depressed professional wages. And in Vancouver, because of mass immigration we have super high housing prices with a low median wage. How is that good for anybody except real estate salespeople? Our infrastructure is bulging at the seams. Buses are passing people by because the bus company can't afford to put more buses on the road. Immigration isn't benefiting most Canadians. The pols love it because they think they can get votes from it. Business loves it because it depresses wages. But the average Canadian isn't getting any benefit from it at all.

   

So its not a big hoo haa about immigration ! Its about wages, well why did'nt you say so. Much to do about nothing eh ?

And to be honest I feel really stupid to be the only one talking about this and what makes it even stupider (???) is that I don't even live in Canada or even plan on going there !

So its really kinda pointless for me to be in here, talk about feeling out of place ?!

   

They've been making these suggestions for six or seven threads. You've simply ignored them, and lumped us all together into the anti-andyt camp.

If venting is demanding you actually pull something out of your ass other than the same answer time and again, ignoring criticism and (apparently) playing the victim, then I will happily vent at you until you produce something other than poisionous and divisive rhetoric and actually choose to join the conversation rather than dictate at it.

To be frank, if we had enough people becoming doctors, we wouldn't have a shortage time and again, and we wouldn't have to have people recertify as doctors (most need to, so much for Canadians being cut off from becoming one because it takes years for most foreign doctors to regain their credentials here) and you wouldn't see immigrants filling those roles.

You could even say we were... tailoring our needs for doctors. Especially since the government gets last say on if you can become one and practice in Canada.

Brock's post may fundamentally agree with yours on some level (frankly, he is only talking about being able to speak the English language which is a far cry from your position), but see how he approached the thread? If I asked him a question, he'd probably answer! If I criticized him, he'd retort. He wouldn't dodge and run away to make a new thread. Notice how Brenda responded to him? It was all quite civil. Don't troll, and this is what happens. People actually pay attention.

There are arguments all throughout this forum which are quite civil. It's why a lot of people get repped up for "good arguments" from people who are disagreeing with them, or have different political persuasions. Indeed, I have said many times in the past that their needs to be some changes in the immigration structure. I even described several of them. You've thrown a few back in my face in a rude or overstated manner as if I don't agree with them.





I don't say they have the one true answer. No one has even really bothered responding to my posts in general or my sources in particular from the other side of this argument. Well, Bruce once diagnosed my sources as having expertitis. How many times do I have to say my sources are open to the same scrutiny before you even bother scrutizing them? The only person unwilling to discuss things time and again have been you.

You wouldn't even know about depressing wages at the professional level if I hadn't had to explain your own source to you (yes, this bit of information comes from your source, not mine, although good job on trying to use it as an attack on me). You were using it at the time to say "immigrants are bringing down low-end wages and causing poverty," when in fact immigrants were increasing income equality and not producing a larger and larger subclass of the put-upon. Indeed, your own source stated that as a result, we don't see the sharp division in pay rates, we are highly productive and everyone benefits as more jobs are adding to the economy and greater amounts of resources can be directed whether by choice or inherently to those at the bottom of the economic flagpole.

Don't cherry pick the one line which meets what you want to say now and forget the rest. Indeed, you've been arguing with Brenda for two pages about how qualified immigrants are, and you brought in a line... based on the reality that our immigrants are well qualified and educated. At the time, you refused to believe your own source stating many of the beliefs you hold deal have been demonstrated false.

Good job. You've just demonstrated Brenda and desertdude are correct. Could you just have admitted it instead of now relying on a fact with it's basis in their position a page or two previous?

@Sock, that was a good read, thanks!

@desertdude, nah. We love you, please don't leave us! You're making good points! In fact, I think you've made a bigger point than I have in all of these threads. A lot of this reflects issues which need repair, rather than issues which were brought about by immigration. Real wage stagnation, the education system, recertification and so forth have dozens of articles about them, and a lot of them mention immigration but don't make it the root cause, if I remember correctly. A lot of these issues would not have immigration at it's center, but other relationships. Immigration is the easy target for blame.

   

http://www.theprovince.com/business/Guest+column+Economists+defend+work+immigration+costs/4872303/story.html

   

Byline: by the authors of the paper! Well, at least they've moved on from using another member from the Fraser Institute to write their articles for them. Now the researchers are writing it themselves. For the record, every single paper I have ever sourced you related to immigrants and Canada used StatsCan too.

I like the "neutral" title. Economists imply someone with a degree had come to their defense, not that they were defending themselves. "Fraser Institute members defend work" would have been better. But surely, to post such an article, andyt has taken into account past criticisms which were just posted in the last thread...

... wait, no, this thread is a continuation of a thread describing work from a disreputable group who the thread poster can't bring himself to use in any of his other theories because the Fraser Institute and he don't get along well on other topics. Their estimates here are worse than what doom, dismay and destruction will befall Canadians (52,000 jobs lost! Fewer benefits, worse training! This will cause poverty to rise by 2%!) when minimum wage in BC rises.

Why didn't you just stick this at the end of the last thread, which is a few days old, instead of starting a new one on the same discussion? Especially since I just spent a good portion of time pointing out this "make-a-thread-then-run" strategy in your last thread, which just leads me to believe you are doing this to incite a negative response.

Also, that would be a right-winger response, to the bit you edited in your writing to. Right-wing politics and economics tend to be fairly anti-subsidy. However, given that this is more of an investment, I contend you can still be a right-winger and support immigration. I mean, just look at the few thousand people who have worked in these programs, and the general consensus of economists, to see that.

If I post a comment on their work, will you respond this time? Like, for example, that the strategy they suggest we employ mean that when we are at our lowest we are preparing to have fewer people available to work for when we boom, or that the work is once again not considering long-term factors? This would be... the sixth time I have posted the second bit. Still waiting for a response to it... what, six, seven months later? Or how about that this is still based in American-related immigration theory, which numerable articles I have posted, as well as papers, have demonstrated is not analagous to the Canadian position? They used American VISA statistics and Homeland Security immigration statistics/definitions in their overview of Canadian policy, and stuck to using almost exclusive sources inside the Fraser Institute aside. I notice that wasn't mentioned in the news article. Oops! Slip of the mind.

Indeed, the only part of the StatsCan REPORTS which agree with them wholeheartedly are the first line of the abstracts. Being a new immgrant sucks more now than it used too in comparison to settled immigrants and born Canadians. Luckily, being the child of an immigrant is much better, and the reasons for the problems are far different between post-2000 and pre-2000 (I guess the folks at the Fraser Institute missed that tidbit when they were quote mining). In other words... longterm makes it worthwhile.

What is with you and posting these in the dead of night?

   

You just throw out too many points at a time for me to respond to Khar, and often they are tangential to the points the people cited have made.

Why do you need to spend so much time attacking the authors? They are trained economists, the title didn't lie, and they have their opinions. As they say, put 2 economists in a room and you'll get 3 opinions. Not exactly a hard science.

The stuff about what immigration is costing in govt revenues is based on Stats Can data, no American immigration theory involved.

If right wingers are so anti-subsidy, why are they anti minimum wage - the same argument applies as with the nannies for power couples. We all subsidize minimum wage workers in a welfare state, taking the burden off the employer. I donk't know if they've thought their argument thru here. But then somewhere I read Gruebel advocating for a $12 min wage. Unfortunately I was not able to find the reference. Maybe he's getting soft in his old age.

I don't know what you mean here, so I can't respond to it.

   

They are not tangential points, they are central to the entire argument. Especially when they are based on the source material.

To be frank, I spend so much time attacking them because you spend so little time defending them. If you'd like, I can link you to the last thread where I provided an overview of why the Fraser Institute was a questionable source. I also do not understand why you are so willing to defend an Institute hell-bent on opposing positions to many of your economic ideals.

How is the fact that this is a short term outlook versus a long term one tangential? It's like this is half the paper, and the other half is ignored -- even when their own sources state that the only problems exist in the beginnings of the immigration process? This has been a problem with Grubel's work before, and is a problem now.

As I demonstrated several posts previous, the work they cited from Green and such which they based their theory on for immigration was derived for America, was put together by an American, and was based for an American audience. They've sourced material from American VISA offices and other American sources for use, and it's not exactly non-existant in their paper.

The problem here, andyt, is that if you put 3000 economists in a room, you'd have these two, a handful of supporters, and then a big room full of economists going "in the context of Canada, immigration isn't half-bad." This is demonstrated by my difficulty in finding any resources outside of the Fraser Institute and derivative sites which agree with them. Most of the problems we see in the media or out of economics journals have to do with mass migration to Europe from Africa and problems with people rushing into the States. The problems which exist on Canadian soil have more to do with the support system, and these problems are not long-term affairs for immigrants alone.

The paper just sourced shows Grubel condemning the rise in minimum wage as a horrible ideal, so I do call into question Grubel ever supporting a $12 minimum wage. To be frank, right-wingers were not the ones who put in the social support systems -- that would be the left-wing.

The last bit is in regards to "immigrate a lot when business is good, a little when it is bad." Basically, at our peak, when we are already sloping down into a recession, is when they want to have the most immigration, but when we are seeking economic growth at our lowest point, we won't have anyone immigrating into Canada. This is a policy move which has a good chance of prolonging or exacerbating economic issues rather than helping them. We maintain it constant because the impact of immigration is inherently long-term, and can move across several business cycles at times before the full effect is there. Then they have children, etc. If immigration was entirely an immediate economic stimulant or depressant, we'd use it like this -- but we shouldn't if it is not, since immigration does have long-term impacts. This is more likely to destabilize the cycles than help them, in my opinion.

   

I think you're mixing up green with Borjas. Green was very clear that he was talking about Canada. And why should Borjas apply to US/Uk but not to Canada?

Using temp visas as the immigration portal would eliminate any problem with lag time. If demand for workers is high, employers would bestir themselves to get temp visa workers. Because these would be temp visas, they could be granted faster, since the temp worker would be getting a trial run in Canada, and if he gets fired or otherwise loses his job, back home he goes. But if he does manage to keep his job and do well, they suggest after 4 years he could be granted pr status. As far as I'm concerned, it could be after 2 years, because that's plenty of time for him/her to prove themselves. During down times employers would not bother with temp visas, since hiring would be off, and Canadians are easier to hire. A very flexible system that matches employees to jobs, so we don't have disappointed immigrants coming here expecting to work in their field and then not getting in, and we wouldn't have all those immigrants coming in who can't seem to speak the language.

The only caveat would be that we would have to improve our training system in Canada, remove the barriers to that for Canadians, so that employers first find a good pool of available workers in Canada. Then the visa system would be used only for when there really is a shortage of Canadian workers.

They refuted your short/long term argument in their rebuttal.

As for the $12 min wage, I know I was surprised reading Gruebel advocate that too. I think it wasn't about a minimum wage so much as that if we restrict immigration wages would naturally rise at the lower level (probably at the higher level too, since it's been shown that immigration has depressed professional wages in Canada) and low end wages would naturally rise to the 12 dollar level according to him. And at this level people start actually paying some significant amount of tax, so they have a greater buy in into the system. Anyway, as I say, the argument they make about well off couples paying more for Canadian nannies, and how that removes a subsidy they get from the state in terms of govt subsidies to poor workers isn't restricted to nannies. It applies to all low end workers, they may just not know that they are arguing lefty ideas here.

   

Yawn.

   

I am not mixing up Green and Borjas. Green took Reder's theory for American immigration (I explained this previously) and tried applying it to Canada. This new paper cites Borjas, and he is mentioned in the original article alongside Green. Green makes the same mistake as the article's authors -- trying to attach American immigration theory to Canadian immigration practice, even though it is demonstratedly different. Note that Green's theory was the origin of the papers stating that the two are different, three years later, if I remember correctly.

The VISA theory is actually really familiar to one my friend is working with now as a potential immigrant. He was here for three and a half years, but moved to Indonesia for work (originally, he is from Singapore), during which he began to love Canada and identify as Canadian. Unfortunately, that resets his clock. I don't think we should limit access to skilled workers -- if they've been here for two years, that should be long enough for Canada, if they have the right skills under a VISA program.

I disagree that "immigrants" steal jobs. Typically, there isn't a talent pool in Canada comparably comprehensive enough to international talent (to augment our labour force in areas of importance) in the fields we are actively recruiting people for. If a guy from China can move here and do a better job than a woman from Canada, I'll choose a guy from China. As it stands now, it is already difficult to bring the guy from China into the work force (there's quite a few barriers in place, both institutional and normal things like the problems moving someone halfway around the world to a different country), so if they were equal, the woman would get the job. If he gets the job, the company benefits, he benefits, we get better services from him as a society and he expands our economy. The woman does not get a job, but there might be another one more fitting to her skills. Bringing the guy over could bring around more jobs, and is likely part of what has equalized her pay. Besides, a lot of our immigrants who come here to work come with fairly good skills, as was mentioned a few times previously.

If they rebutted my position, then they rebutted at least two of their own sources, as I stated. I linked one of those studies in my last post. As I mentioned, it is only the first line which agrees with them -- then it gets into the long-term. I don't think they did rebutt my argument, however. Most, if not all, of us are children of immigrants, wholly, to Canada. Our existence effectively demonstrates the impact of immigration to Canada. How much of that 1.6 trillion dollars we will bring in this year can be attributed to Natives, who make up a small portion of our population? How much of our GDP rise of 5.6% can be attributed to immigrants and the children of immigrants?

It's entirely possible that our current crop of immigrants may not be as successful, but I am better they will be. The reason, however, I talk about Grubel's sources is because of what he uses -- government expenditures, studies about foreign countries, news articles and so forth. A lot of my criticisms remain, and until they are handled by the Fraser Institute than, even if we are to accept them as a viable source, I find it difficult to find this anywhere close to a comprehensive response to the current immigration platform.

In the past, you've supported Malthusian Theory and similar practices, so you are used to looking at things far in the future. Immigration is one of those situations where you have to think ahead, far ahead. Even if the Fraser Institute comes out with a comprehensive study covering the plethora of criticisms I have, I would still likely support it, for my children, and for my grandchildren. I am willing to pay today so that, in the future, they will have a better, larger Canada to call home.

There are ways to improve immigration... but I still don't think that involves reducing immigration. Anyways, I'll follow Eyebrock's implied request and shut up and fuck off for the time being now.

   

Wow, all these economists you've proven wrong. You really should publish a paper or something - you'll be famous. What an idiot that Green guy must have been.

Actually the argument Gruebel is making is that immigration should be scaled to conditions in Canada as it was very successfully before Mulroney came along, when immigrants did better than native Canadians. So there might be times when it should be high, but others when it should be low. Just pouring in the people, for some supposed long term advantage that you imagine isn't the way to go.

You seem to think it's all about the Fraser Institute, but the article that started this post is from these guys: http://www.immigrationreform.ca/index.shtml

Here's advisory board:

James Bissett, former Ambassador and former Director General of the Canadian Immigration Service.

Derek Burney, is Senior Strategic Advisor to Ogilvy Renault LLP and former Canadian Ambassador to the United States.

Martin Collacott (Chairman), former Ambassador and currently Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute where he studies immigration and refugee policy, national identity and multiculturalism, as well as related national security issues.

Gordon Gibson, Senior Fellow in Canadian Constitutional and Aboriginal Affairs at the Fraser Institute; former head of the British Columbia Liberal Party; designer of BC's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform; author and columnist.

Patrick Grady, author and economist formerly of Canada's Department of Finance and Bank of Canada, now consultant with Global Economics.

Herbert Grubel, Professor of Economics (Emeritus), Simon Fraser University; Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute.

David Harris, Director of the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc.

Barbara Kay, National Post Columnist.

Jean Loiselle, former Chief of Staff of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson and former Deputy Minister of Immigration of Quebec.

John L. Manion (Deceased), former Deputy Minister of Immigration, Secretary of the Treasury Board and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet.

Salim Mansur, Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario, author of Islam’s Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim, nationally published columnist.

Gilles Paquet, Professor Emeritus, Telfer School of Management and Senior Research Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa.

Joseph Po MD, FRCPC, Lieutenant-Colonel, CF National Anaesthesia Advisor, NCR Senior Specialist and Chief of Surgical Services, 1 Canadian Field Hospital, Ottawa Surgical Det.

Raheel Raza, author of THEIR JIHAD…NOT MY JIHAD, is an award winning Canadian writer, professional speaker, and diversity consultant.

Julie Taub, Ottawa-based lawyer specializing in the field of Canadian Immigration law, former Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) Refugee Protection Division (RPD) (1997-2000 Toronto).


Guess those guys are all idiots who don't understand immigration either.

   

To moderator: If you're going to remove the text that I post here, please explain why? I'm not doing anything different than other posters in this regard.

http://www.immigrationreform.ca/index.shtml

   

... holy crap. I think I know who you are off the computer. You are Andy Turnbull.

To be honest, if that's true, I'm not sure what I think of that. It would explain the odd reference to Tuktoyaktuk. Not to mention comments about groupthink, Malthusian theory, and the education system (especially post-secondary education). Those were hallmarks in his books. Not to mention your responses to comments regarding journalist would be in line with expected archetypes of a retired writer/freelance journalist.

I already noted that immigrationreform.ca were heavily related to the Fraser Institute and the Howe Institute, and I called it by what it is... their child institution, with their members and their ideologies, under a different name and nothing more. At least, I've stated it in this thread at least once. At least a half-dozen times overall now.

Three economists related to immigration, in a horde of the uneducated, are "all those economists" I am disagreeing with. They are not comparable to the overall amount of people working in the field. Even if every single one of those people were absolutely unprecedented experts in the field of immigration, they'd still be an incredibly tiny, incredibly minor portion of the overall expert pool.

Let's take Bisset. How many people have held his position? How many people have worked with him? How many other positions are present? Lots. Dozens, hundreds. None of them are talking like he does. Why? This is a special-interest group who can incredibly rarely get their ideologies (those published are lite on the Fraser Institute line) regarding immigration into any actual journal (three economists, who are heavily published... in-house) so they turn to a "think tank." This is all once again based on you dancing around the problems I've enumerated about the Fraser Institute in the past (including the lack of credentials amongst the staff, even those doing research on "economics" and "immigration"). If you are Mr. Turnbull, I can understand your point of view regarding all this now, considering what you've written, and why you take umbrage considering my position on similar works.

I don't need to write the papers. They already exist. I can read the conclusions. You don't have to be incredibly intelligent to get their position. The work is there. There are a lot of real, education economists represented in that work.

This would have required you to actually read the posts of someone else. An intellectual merry-go-round of stating and restating and restating and restating (while ignoring the fact that they got answered six times already by two different people) ends up going no where. Nobody is convinced, and nobody replies.

Your response was trollish. I've probably already responded to whatever you bring up again, even if you try to claim I haven't at this point, so I'm not sure what continuing this discussion will accomplish, other than more abuse.

   

http://www.immigrationreform.ca/index.shtml

   

Too bad I missed this whole thread. I have been busy looking for non-existent jobs.

Andy, why are you asking questions you know the answer of? Canada (or the Canadian government and big business) needs slaves. Those screwed up guys get to do some dirty job for a couple of years then they leave without their money and vacate the spot for the new harvest of fools.

Here is why Canada needs them:

http://www.dsc-gc.com/department.php

I, myself, have just two more months left on my assistance program. If I find nothing by then, I have to make some radical changes. But suing the government is not an option. No money or time for that and the outcome of such a case is clear.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7