Canada to have 50 million people, half of them immigrant families, by 2041 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15247603
Canadian immigration levels are currently at their highest since the era just before the First World War, when mass immigration was used to homestead the prairies.

Except these immigrants will not be moving to the prairies, and instead will most likely be living around the already overcrowded areas of Toronto and Vancouver, places where many Canadians struggle to afford to live due to high prices and housing shortages.

Just last year, Canada brought in 401,000 new permanent residents.
One result of this influx, according to new projections from Statistics Canada, is that Canada will be home to as many as 50 million people by 2041. It’s twice as high as the Canadian population as recently as 1980. It also means that over the next 19 years, we’ll be adding enough new Canadians to equal the present-day equivalent of all of Western Canada (the combined population of Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba was 11 million in the last census

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/fi ... es-by-2041
FIRST READING: Canada to have 50 million people, half of them immigrant families, by 2041
According to Statistic Canada projections, Canada will add 13 million new citizens over the next 19 years, Tristin Hopper, September 19, 2022, National Post
#15247607
Below article is about the Canadian government paying for housing costs because migrants do not earn enough to afford it, in the areas they have settled to.
"latest study undertaken by UBC. Finding houses in Canada is really difficult for immigrants, states professor of geography at UBC, Daniel Hiebert. ... majority of immigrants including refugees in Canada spent half of their earnings on housing, findings of the study involving 600 immigrants in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto show. ... The study analyzed that average income of immigrants forming part of the recent UBC survey was below $20,000 while average income in cities was around $69,000. And average prices of houses in Vancouver are nothing less than one million dollars."​

"Canada housing unaffordable for immigrants", by Florence Gibbs, March 16, 2012
"Housing harder to find for newcomers, study shows", CBC News, March 14, 2012

I'd guess that is probably the reason immigrants come to these particular areas in the first place. Because plenty of low level jobs are available to them there because Canadians who would have done those jobs left because they could not afford to live nearby anymore, due to the very high housing costs.

related thread, very much related to Toronto:
"The rise of the professional class in big cities - and others getting pushed out" < Economics & Capitalism < 24 Dec 2021
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=181411
#15247692
It takes time for information to get down to the unwashed.

Countries are going to need people, badly, and wealthier countries will have a real advantage at attracting them.

Canada needs a lot of immigrants. Not as many, say, as Russia. But Russia is going to be up poop creek without a paddle. It's demographics are the stuff of nightmares. Not as bad as China, but still..

After WW2, the world had a baby boom. That's normal after a war, but this was a world war of unusual extent. And after the boom came a baby bust. Zeihan talks about this all the time in his videos.

When you have a bunch of kids, they grow up and have babies. That means they buy everything. Houses, cars, washers, tons of clothes, etc,etc,etc. That is economic activity that drives an economy. When you have a baby bust, you get the same thing, but in reverse.

Even worse, when you retire you want the lowest risk possible on investments. And you aren't looking for good long term investments. That investment money used to power economic and technological growth.

But...what that means is not at all clear, at least for us. The dollar is strong and will likely stay strong. And if we can get the Republicans out of the f**king way, we can easily attract the best and brightest from all over the planet. We did that routinely for generations, we still can.

We're in a new era, it's going to suck, but then as someone who has seen eras come and go, they all suck in one way or another.
#15247862
late wrote:Countries are going to need people, badly, and wealthier countries will have a real advantage at attracting them.

If more population is such an asset, why is India and Africa so poor? A huge percentage of their populations live in poverty.

In the 1970's India embarked on a desperate policy to try to reduce their population growth, viewing it as the biggest threat to their economic future. (The policy even included poor women being tricked and pressured into receiving tubal ligations so they could not have more children)

And then there is the phenomena that many of these Third World countries that are sending population to countries like the U.S. and Europe still have growing population numbers, despite the massive emigration out of their countries.

late wrote:When you have a bunch of kids, they grow up and have babies. That means they buy everything. Houses, cars, washers, tons of clothes, etc,etc,etc. That is economic activity that drives an economy.

When you add more people, there will be more people buying things, but each person will have less money. That typically means a larger number of jobs but more lower paying jobs. (and of course the larger number of jobs will only be in proportion to population growth; 10 jobs for 10 people, 20 jobs for 20 people)

But I think this is a topic for another thread, because you're bringing up another issue.

Keep in mind that, while Canada does have a huge area, there is only a small percentage of that area where people want to live.

Simple statistics illustrate this. 70% of the Canadian population lives south of the 49th parallel. 7 out of the 10 Canadian provinces are completely north of the 49th parallel.
66 percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 km United States border. This area represents only about 4% of Canada's entire territory.
More than 90 percent of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles (241 km) of the United States border.
Keep in mind this is still shorter than the distance between Edmonton and Calgary, the two biggest cities in Alberta.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 21 Sep 2022 21:48, edited 1 time in total.
#15247867
Puffer Fish wrote:If more population is such an asset, why is India and Africa so poor?


Colonialism.

A huge percentage of their populations live in poverty.

In the 1970's India embarked on a desperate policy to try to reduce their population growth, viewing it as the biggest threat to their economic future. (The policy even included poor women being tricked and pressured into receiving tubal ligations so they could not have more children)

And then there is the phenomena that many of these Third World countries that are sending population to countries like the U.S. and Europe still have growing population numbers, despite the massive emigration out of their countries.

When you add more people, there will be more people buying things, but each person will have less money. That typically means a larger number of jobs but more lower paying jobs. (and of course the larger number of jobs will only be in proportion to population growth; 10 jobs for 10 people, 20 jobs for 20 people)

But I think this is a topic for another thread, because you're bringing up another issue.

Keep in mind that, while Canada does have a huge area, there is only a small percentage of that area where people want to live.


Again, what is your argument?
#15247869
Pants-of-dog wrote:Colonialism.

Sorry, I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole with you. I think you are just deluding yourself.
How long are these countries going to be able to blame colonialism for their problems? India gained Independence 75 years ago, and even today most of the train lines they have were built by the British.
Africa has fewer kilometers of train lines today than it did under colonialism.
#15247872
Even though Canada has a large and vast land area, the vast majority of that land area is not very habitable. (It's too cold or too far north with very long winters)
So mass influx of immigration could still lead to overcrowding.

Adding lots more people would require a vast and hugely expensive infrastructure investment in construction of new cities. Something I guarantee you is not going to happen.
#15247885
Puffer Fish wrote:
If more population is such an asset, why is India and Africa so poor? A huge percentage of their populations live in poverty.

In the 1970's India embarked on a desperate policy to try to reduce their population growth, viewing it as the biggest threat to their economic future. (The policy even included poor women being tricked and pressured into receiving tubal ligations so they could not have more children)

And then there is the phenomena that many of these Third World countries that are sending population to countries like the U.S. and Europe still have growing population numbers, despite the massive emigration out of their countries.


When you add more people, there will be more people buying things, but each person will have less money. That typically means a larger number of jobs but more lower paying jobs. (and of course the larger number of jobs will only be in proportion to population growth; 10 jobs for 10 people, 20 jobs for 20 people)

But I think this is a topic for another thread, because you're bringing up another issue.

Keep in mind that, while Canada does have a huge area, there is only a small percentage of that area where people want to live.

Simple statistics illustrate this. 70% of the Canadian population lives south of the 49th parallel. 7 out of the 10 Canadian provinces are completely north of the 49th parallel.
66 percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 km United States border. This area represents only about 4% of Canada's entire territory.
More than 90 percent of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles (241 km) of the United States border.
Keep in mind this is still shorter than the distance between Edmonton and Calgary, the two biggest cities in Alberta.



Go learn.
#15248005
Puffer Fish wrote:Sorry, I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole with you. I think you are just deluding yourself.
How long are these countries going to be able to blame colonialism for their problems? India gained Independence 75 years ago, and even today most of the train lines they have were built by the British.
Africa has fewer kilometers of train lines today than it did under colonialism.


Then maybe we can focus on your argument.

Why should anyone care about immigration to Canada?
#15248007
Puffer Fish wrote:Even though Canada has a large and vast land area, the vast majority of that land area is not very habitable. (It's too cold or too far north with very long winters)
So mass influx of immigration could still lead to overcrowding.
:lol: Why is dishonesty the first thing you go for? Overcrowding.... :roll: That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Have you ever even been to Canada? :eh:

50 million people isn't that much for the landmass that Canada has(almost as large as Russia but with significantly less population... they have 140 million and no one is talking about Russia being overpopulated). Fear-mongering is one of your common tactics. Why?

You're just trying to make a racist argument about demographics. Stuff it.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are the most avid entrepreneurs. Immigrants to Canada are a strength.
#15248111
late wrote:Why do you have to oversimplify everything??

They can, and will, bring in people as they need them.

You Leftists are funny. It was policies pushed by the Left that led to sprawling expansion of the suburbs, long work commute times, everyone requiring a car for transportation, and all the pollution that brings.

And more immigration just keeps creating more of it. But you're not able to see that.

Bringing in more people without giving any consideration to carefully planned expansion of city infrastructure and design will just lead to a deterioration in quality of life. This is something you as a Leftist should totally support, but you're ignoring it. Because immigration is a greater priority for you.
#15248114
Godstud wrote::lol: Why is dishonesty the first thing you go for? Overcrowding.... :roll: That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Have you ever even been to Canada? :eh:

50 million people isn't that much for the landmass that Canada has(almost as large as Russia but with significantly less population... they have 140 million and no one is talking about Russia being overpopulated). Fear-mongering is one of your common tactics. Why?

I already addressed that in one of my previous posts.

We all know these immigrants are not going to be headed to the empty land, or be "settling the prairies" like the last great wave of immigrants.

A time will be coming soon to Canada where ordinary citizens will not be able to afford living in the traditional old big cities, and that will just be the new normal. You can already see this in many parts of the U.S. Instead, people will be living in overpriced suburbs that surround these big city areas, and it will be a 45 minute commute by car if they want to get to the city.

People like you don't care, of course, and even when it happens, you'll just say "So what?", and any connection there in your brain will just refuse to form. Because you don't want to see it.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 23 Sep 2022 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15248117
Puffer Fish wrote:You Leftists are funny. It was policies pushed by the Left that led to sprawling expansion of the suburbs, long work commute times, everyone requiring a car for transportation, and all the pollution that brings.
Nice lies you tell yourself.

Puffer Fish wrote:And more immigration just keeps creating more of it. But you're not able to see that.
You mean immigration that Canadians want, enjoy and encourage? Fuck off. :lol: You're not Canadian and you don't even know what being Canadian entails. Canada is a nation of immigrants.

Also, bringing in immigrants is a bi-partisan thing. Conservatives and Liberals have been doing so for decades.

Puffer Fish wrote:Bringing in more people without giving any consideration to carefully planned expansion of city infrastructure and design will just lead to a deterioration in quality of life. This is something you as a Leftist should totally support, but you're ignoring it. Because immigration is a greater priority for you.
Immigrants create jobs. The greatest sources of entrepreneurship is from immigrants.


Canadian cities are growing, and have the room to do so. You haven't addressed any arguments. All you've done it made idiotic claims(with no facts) and opinions, based on your ignorance.


It's fun when you show your stupidity and ignorance by making posts like this.
Last edited by Godstud on 23 Sep 2022 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15248121
Godstud wrote:Also, bringing in immigrants is a bi-partisan thing. Conservatives and Liberals have been doing so for decades.

Canada is like 40 years behind the U.S.
It was once kind of a "bipartisan" thing in the U.S. too, during the 1980s. Or at least the two major parties on both sides supported it, and any disagreement did not exist along party lines.

The leadership on the Left wanted more votes, and the leadership on the Right wanted more cheap labor and "growth" for their businesses. (It was sort of the middle class on the Right and the working class on the Left that got screwed, but these weren't really the people that were actually running the parties)

It's like a game of chess where you can not see 5 moves ahead.

So the U.S. was like where Canada is now. Take a look at the developments that have happened in the U.S. since that time. A large segment of the working classes got displaced and had to move to different states, much of the middle class then followed them. Conservative leaders finally began realising at the last moment that the massive redistribution of people was close to ousting them from power, and that they would soon be subject the intolerable whims and "crazy" policies of the Left. Some subgroups that had traditionally voted for the Left before now voted Right, and other subgroups that had traditionally voted for the Right began to side with the moderate Left, though both only reluctantly.
In the U.S., huge homelessness problems now exist in many of the areas where the Left is most concentrated, and the younger generation cannot afford to start new households.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 23 Sep 2022 03:59, edited 2 times in total.
#15248122
"China is doomed. It is entering a demographic crisis. The West will prevail because it attracts migrants and laborers from all over the world to keep its population above replacement levels, while China cannot."

"Immigration and migrant families are an existential threat to the West and must be stopped at all costs."

Pick a lane, Western far-right. :lol:
#15248123
Fasces wrote:"China is doomed. It is entering a demographic crisis. The West will prevail because it attracts migrants and laborers from all over the world to keep its population above replacement levels, while China cannot."

Thread about that here:

China has an intractable demographic problem
viewtopic.php?f=114&t=181410

China is now in a position of being between a rock and hard place, in terms of policy choices. It is damned if it does and damned if doesn't.

It cannot keep growing and there are already too many people, but at the same time the workforce is not going to be large enough to pay for the old.

In other words, China has come to the end of the demographic pyramid scheme. It was never really long-term sustainable.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 23 Sep 2022 04:04, edited 3 times in total.
#15248124
Puffer Fish wrote:
You Leftists are funny.

It was policies pushed by the Left that led to sprawling expansion of the suburbs, long work commute times, everyone requiring a car for transportation, and all the pollution that brings.

And more immigration just keeps creating more of it. But you're not able to see that.

Bringing in more people without giving any consideration to carefully planned expansion of city infrastructure and design will just lead to a deterioration in quality of life. This is something you as a Leftist should totally support, but you're ignoring it. Because immigration is a greater priority for you.



You need to learn math.

Actually, the suburbs seemed like a good idea during the Cold War, the guy that started it in America was Ike, a Republican that nobody has ever described as Leftist...

If the population is going down, immigrants will slow the decline. That's math..

Ironic, I am pretty much the only person here that posts regularly about improving the quality of life...

https://i.imgur.com/5SrboWV.jpg […]

Potpourri, and a little pot

https://global.discourse-cdn.com/busi[…]

BlutoSays, I'm talking to you. The basic idea of […]

Is there glory in war?

Depends on the war.