Previous  1  2  3  4

No, I was talking Technologically. I haven't noticed much Cultural shift at all.

   

See, was that so hard?

I read that on Wikipedia too - I wonder if they still believe that Canada should reach for 100 million. I wish the ECoC report was available online, but I haven't been able to locate it.

BTW, Keung's call for a bump to 400,000 annually still wouldn't get us to anywhere near 100 million by 2050 (it would add 16 million in the next 40 years).

   

My bad.

From my point of view, I have noticed a huge cultural shift since I grew up in the 70s/80s. Edmonton went from being predominantly white to being a real cultural mosaic.

   

There is more diversity, but on the whole I notice very little difference in the underlying Culture.

   

Read all the posts I made. The GDP benefit to Canada from immigration is minuscule, but there is a large shift in wealth from Canadians to immigrants. Raising the total GDP of a country doesn't help if the GDP per capita goes down. And, those studies ignore all the costs of immigration like higher housing prices (raises GDP but does nothing for people) transportation costs, garbage revmoval, and environmental degradation.

Let em all move to Edmonton and you won't hear another peep out of me. Just stop them from moving to Metro Vancouver.

   

Higher housing costs don't benefit people?

Apparently you're not a realtor or in construction or in forestry. If you were, you'd know that it most definitely benefits people, by creating jobs and increasing wealth. Increased prices creates wealth for realtors and developers and spurs construction. Increased construction creates more jobs in raw materials industries too (gotta get wood and concrete from somewhere to build those condos and apartment buildings). It also generates wealth in the financial sector (creating jobs for mortgage specialists at banks), and so on.

Think about it.

If Vancouver increases by 10,000 per year (say without any immigration, just the births of residents and migration from other parts of Canada), maybe 3000 new apartments/condos/homes are needed each year. But if another 50,000 people (on top of the 10,000 I already theorized) move to the city every year (20% of current immigration), you need far more than 3000 built - I'd guess at least five times that (15,000). Maybe even more because most immigrants don't buy a house in the first year - they rent for a few years until they have stable jobs and a downpayment. So that increase in construction fuels a mini-boom in a varity of sectors, creating employment and generating wealth (jobs) for people it wouldn't have without immigration. And given that cities collect property taxes on all those new buildings, they should be able to maintain the level of service they did prior to immigration starting, assuming their formula for property taxes was viable beforehand.

That all flows back to Khar's assertion that immigration benefits Canada in the long term, but is expensive in the short term.

I'll agree that higher housing costs don't benefit EVERYONE, but it definitely benefits some people.

   

How do higher housing costs benefit forestry? Higher housing costs are a disincentive to buy/build, not an incentive. People are wringing their hands about the high cost of housing. But what really makes it suck is when the bubble collapses (ring a bell) and people are left broke.

So far nothing I've read says there is any kind of large benefit to Canada, short or long term. The only ones who have a clear benefit are the immigrants themselves. And we see the many negatives to Canadians as a result. I'd rather leave the immigrants home and send them some foreign aid or something. Or, like I say, have them all move to Edmonton and leave Vancouver alone for a while.

   

I agree with you and Thanos 100% here. According to that book, our oceans should have already been dying off, with symptoms ranging from mass fish deaths leading to an evacuation of coastlines, and so on. In fact, these evacuations should have ended over a decade ago, according to the predictions.

But what you two said above is definitely something which I should have remembered instead of using the line I did, and you are both correct in my books. There's a lot of ongoing issues which I feel either compete with or eclipse global warming in concern, and the current state of our oceans is one of them.



As I said, this is a fringe ideal. One economist stating a theory (and not a theory in the scientific term life evolution, an idea would be it's equivalent) does not mean it's going to get wide spread support, especially since two of the loudest pro-immigrant voices so far in these discussions (myself and bootlegga) do not support it, nor do others who have spoken up in support like EyeBrock.

Likewise, Grubel specializes in short term concerns and I have already responded to this in other threads. Yes, we would need a lot of people (although Grubel overstates comparable literature I provided yourself by over 60 million people) to fix some problems, but no economists are making the assumptions which Grubel is, or forecasts as radical as he and other members of his Institute are (few of whom are economists). As also mentioned, Grubel is a member of the Fraser Institute and should be considered a questionable source for the reasons I have provided you in other threads (I will link anyone who would like me to).

Actually, these sources not only talk about why Grubel is incorrect, but also go on to support immigration. Perhaps the reason why you continue to use a faulty source and a theory which does not fit into actual viable academic research while stating that you've read nothing about the economic benefits of Canada is because you are choosing not to read what has been stated here and in other threads?

I have already talked about these sources in other threads you have used. The sources you attempted to use on bootslegga are not supported by any actual literature. I in turn have provided you with a plethora of positives for immigration in my opening post in another thread. I have also stated (with support) other sources which discredit what Grubel has stated already, up to an including actual estimates, looks at how aging can be handled partially by immigration and so forth.

I can link you to these sources again. You demanded I give you quotes from them and I did, so it will not be hard for my to find them, quote them, reference them, whatever you would like, to show the benefits of immigration. Then you use quotes from Wikipedia without checking to see what time frame we are talking about, and it's certainly not by 2050, as you have implied. They do want us to increase immigration.

Do they want it by 2050? No. Do they want it to be in the 7 digits a year? No. Are they accredited experts rather than special interests groups who's sites show a remarkable lack of accreditation and information about their sources? Hell yes. The reason why you've not read anything is because you've selectively ignored the sources which have so far proven those special interests sites are incorrect.

Much like Bruce is doing by selectively noticing that everyone bashing Malthusian here is not saying there is no problem in India, but saying why there is a problem is India -- inability to effectively distribute food. He ignores the impact of the Green Revolution, or the general improvement and convergence of many nations towards OECD levels, because this doesn't fit in line with "Malthus is right."

Malthus is wrong. You do not have the expertise, nor do your sources have to expertise, to manage to say otherwise when actual evidence, data, information, trends and experts have said, displayed, or supported otherwise.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4