Listen , like u say , bring a a foreign engineer with his wife and 2 kids .
Yes great he wins 100k but school , health care and all the city services /provincial services do cost a bundle socially because it’s for 4 person .

And we’re talking about a great job over 100k .
Drop it to 50/70k , knowing people around 40k do not pay taxes (they contribute but it’s a negative income for the government in the end) and I’m not sure it’s that much worthwhile .

Like I said wish studies would be made cause I think the concept of unlimited immigration being always positive for the government budget (and so it’s economy further along in time ) seem a bit overblown to me .

If it was just 1 person yes sure I’m with you , but when it end up with wife kids , grand parents, etc in few years afterwards , I’m not so sure .

But hey I might be wrong , I just have no data to make an Informed opinion on it .

Ps: if a lot of Canadians dishes jobs because of too low wages , u won’t help the economy by preventing a natural increase in wages
( for mercantilism purpose for the top of the food chain)
by hiring cheap labour overseas to accommodate unprofitable business that uses ressources (labour, credit , ressources ,etc) that could be better used elsewhere in a profitable way for the economy in general .

Fwiw the government should be there to scoop up workers from falling business and help them in anyway they can but not crippling the economy by saving bad business with cheap labour, preventing real sustainable growth .

I don't see how I can be convinced that an immigrant family with a head of household who has a good skilled job is bad for our future. I grew up in toronto, there are a LOT of immigrants, and these people are not a net drain afaik. They use poor Canadians as an example for their kids of what not to be. I could be way off, but freezing immigration seems like it would be far worse for Canada's future than expanding it. When they say expand it doesn't mean lowering the bar, it just means letting more in who qualify.

This idea of unlimited immigration is just bogus and idk where it comes from. Canada is one if the hardest countries to emigrate to. Canada doesn't let poors in btw. Every permanent resident and school attendee needs a minimum balance to even set foot out of the airport upon arrival. So new engineer guy with a family of 4 has to prove he can support them regardless of his employment. If he is working his highly skilled job then his family deserves access to our resources. 3rd and 4th generation people will smash the average Canadian in years to come. Odds are this guy's kids and grandkids will help Canada more than your average cdn


I've read a bit of this but not all. It's something tho
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...ic-growth.html

Kind of hard to imagine how you would think this hasn't been studied.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...36504219854712

https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%...Numero%202.pdf

https://www.cbpp.org/research/povert...dministrations

Between you somehow not realizing this issue has been studied many times, and your stance on Bill 21, I'm led to question your sources of information on immigration.

I just care about cost .
It as nothing to do with immigration being good or bad .
I know it’s good .
It’s the number I’m worried about and being link to the idea that immigration automatically being used to resolve economic problems .

I just believe there is a certain maximum amount an economy and government expenses can absorb in a beneficial way , per year .

Isn’t the Covid just proved that ?
I mean the system already are missing a lot of teachers , nurses , doctors , etc .
Liberals passed from (i font know the numbers perfectly but I think was from). 400 to 450k for filling jobs .
Im not saying that’s the number we have a problem with btw , I was asking.
The number could be 1 million who knows .
But thx for the studies I’ll check

To me I was looking at , maybe around 1-2% of a increase every year with an already lacking services .
It’s like inflation , 1-2% seem fine cause it isn’t perceptible but imo a number high enough can cause real problems real quick like inflation ?
Maybe it’s not about numbers but about wages too in the short terms .
I think we have a certain need to recalibrate wages ,shrug .

Ps: if that 50k increases is just to bring teachers , nurses , doctors and the like well bring them on , Im all for it !
But that didn’t seem to be what they were talking about , but more about job in manufacturing and stuff like that that seem to deserve more increases in wages ,

Imagine were we thought a 52.8 billion dollar deficit is not large. Covid relief is done and its one of the largest deficits in history

I applaud the dental care for kids but the defense increase is a joke. WE may spend more on supplying Ukraine than our own defenses. We will only be at 1.5% of GDP which is going to upset alot of NATO partners

The affordable housing issue is laughable. Tax free savings accounts for down payment?? $500 credit None of these will help a first time home buyer

I get there is a lack of supply but the problem is also a lack of trades, costs you can not control and the complexity at the municipal level on getting permits

"the deficit is too large but it is joke because they should have spent way more in this and that other area".

"trudeau is a climate phony and we should drill more oil"

Fair enough.

The thing is, it's a complicated issue. On the surface, it certainly looks like it costs us money; I think it's only when we look longer term and with a broader view that it makes more sense financially.



I'm certainly no expert on this topic, and couldn't say that I have 100% certainty that immigration is a net financial benefit. I'm sure there are some economists that could offer reasons it isn't. But I believe it likely is a financial positive, and then there are other benefits outside of financial (diversity, providing opportunity) that make it a net positive. It's still wise to approach the issue carefully, make sure we have proper supports in place, and set up immigrants, as well as our existing population, for success.

Well, it comes down to perspective. When someone claims the following:

and it comes in much below that, I would say that either the person making the eyerolling prediction is always wrong and filled with an emotional anti-Trudeau agenda or the deficit number is relatively low based on expectations, since 52.8 is quite a bit lower than 70+. You can choose which one best describes the situation as needed.

All the best.

No I agree I thought at best it would be a 70 billion plus deficit minimum. 52.8 billion for the liberals is modest.

Freeland would make a better PM

You think anyone would be a better PM. That's your thing. We get it. Probably why your "predictions" tend to be a little off, and by little I mean completely wrong. Sadly, there was no way to bet against your deficit prediction. Oh well.

All the best.

Almost 10 Days of silence ?
Bump .

Lot talk recently about nuclear power .

Seem decent analysis.

3 Billion people use less energy than your refrigerator. People's focus should be on cheap, reliable and plentiful energy to solve that so humans can continue to flourish. Not if it's "green" enough or not.

Is there any numbers of people u would change your tune about green energy not being relevant ?
About 10 billions people needing energy ?
50 or 100 billions people needing energy ?
What’s the number if there is one ?

U complain about inflation but how much oil would cost u think if u would increase the demand of 3 billion people needing oil ?
Ever think about that ?

U seem to think the physical limit of ressources do not exist in real life …

shifty do you have any policy proposals for the bottom 3 Billion people other than #drillbabydrill dressed up in faux humanitarian concern?

The main argument that favors green energy is that the alternative makes us unable to flourish.

I mean, you can live on the most unhealthy of diets, but ultimately your body will pay the price and your life will likely be cut short.

Taking care of the land, renewables and the environment is at the absolute core of any successful society. As a bare-bone minimum you shouldn't pollute your water, spend more water than refills naturally, exhaust your soil or make your air dangerous to breathe. We know from countless examples what happens to societies that do.

Fossil fuels allowed us the industrial revolution and the cheap abundance of energy they provided enabled us to make enormous strides as societies on an almost unprecedented scale. But like some civilizations of the past that unwittingly caused ecologic disasters when they diverted a river, relied too much on one type of crop or didn't have contingencies for a disaster, it turns out that our use of these fuels carried a cost we didn't account for.

Now we've been lied to for 50 years on about how these worries are not factual, and we likely even share some blame because the lies were so comfortable that we accepted them with far too little skepticism. But the core problem is still very simple: You can't rely on resources or methods that exhaust or damage beyond repair the very things you need for society to function.

History is filled with societies that literally starved to death because they made that mistake. Some of them left behind some beautiful ruins that are nice to visit, but I would prefer that this isn't our legacy.

Yes but you are not also looking at the physical limits of electrical power.

I think nuclear is the answer to the carbon crisis as well but many on the left do not want to go there.

Reality is the planet is warming and as well those 3 billion folks Shifty talks about many are escaping poverty and will want a car or consume more resources.

Governments like California and the current liberals want all cars to be electrical by a certain date. The problem is do we have the resources to make all the batteries these cars will require. As well many of these resources are referred to as conflict resources which raises a moral question

The other dilema is the power grid. Here in Canada we experienced grid capacity last year in the heat waves. Lets add a million electric cars and as Vancouver is proposing all houses must be heated by electrical power soon . Were is this power going to come from

I would put my money on the 'Over' bet that most on the 'left' who fight vehemently against nuclear are unwitting dupes of big Fossil fuels groups, who provide the propaganda to whip up their opposition, much like so much of the left in Canada, who fight our use of resources, are unwitting dupes of same.

It is sad for so many reason, in both cases. But they are convinced they are fighting for a greater good, as they push choices that ultimately harm the planet and our greater interests.

In some of the most hardcore there is this dangerous naive belief that if we can just take certain measures to block new production or raise the cost of new production or to keep it more dirty and dangerous then that will force the world to adjust and just use less. And using less is the ultimate big win.

And while the last point might be true (using less would be a ghuge win) it is completely naive of reality and thus dangerous.

We are not going to reduce consumption any time soon, not even close. The demand curve is over time is not flexible. It can have small fluctuations but is ever up and to the right, in a very sharp fashion and will continue to be so. As such the goal needs to be to focus on improving technology and making it as clean as possible and increasing supply,, while then focusing on incentive structures that keep increasing the percent of renewables and Green energy such that when the demand curve is met and can begin to flatten, you then keep increasing the 'green' energy while phasing out the fossil fuels.

That is the real path to success in this area, but sadly, dupes on the left will continue to be used as pawns by the fossil fuel industry and other areas to try and keep us off such paths.

Hmmm....that doesn't seem right.....

All u say is applicable to everything and nuclear wouldn’t fix that .
3 billions people increase in demand sin energy and everything else is impossible .
We already today use up close to 2 earth a year ……
And that is with 3+ billions of people living without a « refrigerator « like shifty love to quote .
As if that would change anything ……

The concept of we just need to invest more in oil to drop price that will permit poverty to be solve is nonsense .

We already have massive problems in supply chain without an excess of 3 billions people demands ….

If don’t want to reduce the population as a whole , its imperative we diminish are energy consumption and find better ways for energy .
Obv its a long process to solve world problems .

Oh it is.



But I know you struggle with it thinking if you can only slow Canadian oil coming out of the ground, and keep it more polluting and expensive, you can change that curve above.

You cannot. You slow Canadian oil, and Russian and Shale just get priced in to fill the gap at a higher price and with more dirty product.

The demand is what is driving it.

So when you see a graph like this



You can see the slight dip, say in 2018 and think that meaningful but what you do not look at is the 'normalizing' over time and how it is straight up and to the right despite fluctuations. What you cannot see is how other sources step into the gap.

it is what happens when naive leftist based economics clashes with reality.

I'm sorry, you didn't resolve the obvious tension in your statements. I'll repeat:

It should hopefully be obvious that "ever up and to the right" and "begins to flatten" are not the same thing.

Regardless, both statements are utter nonsense. I'll show you a demand curve: https://www.investopedia.com/thmb/0x...ddb61ccc76.PNG
A demand curve, which has axes of price and quantity, goes down and to the right. You are talking about a completely different graph which is quantity consumed as a function of time.

For someone who uses leftist economics I understand your troubles but this is the modifying statement and it matters "...when the demand curve is met ..."

I will restate what shifty said since this is the core of what you struggle to understand "...3 Billion people use less energy than your refrigerator...", and until those countries can 'meet that demand curve' and provide them the energy they sorely want, it is then and only then "it will begin to flatten", as renewables can continue to be introduced which means fossil fuels can be increasingly be taken off line.

You aren't using the basic econ 101 words correctly. Look at the graph of a demand curve as I have shown you. It doesn't go "up and to the right". There isn't a point where a demand curve "begins to flatten". And while a demand curve can evolve in time, it is the entire curve that evolves, not changing the point on the curve where you are at.

This isn't a trap, you just aren't using the right economic term to express the phenomena you mean, and it isn't just a matter of ignorance of terminology, it is leading you to make glaring mistakes in your analysis. As I've explained to you, you can't talk about demand in the absent of talking about price. The reason the 3 billion people on the planet who use little energy consume so little is because they can't afford the relative high prices. There is no concept of the "the energy they sorely want" without discussing price, no concept of some mythical amount that can be "met" if only we dramatically increased supply (and with it green house gas emissions).

No you are just wrong. Which is normal when far lefties dare to dabble in econ matters.

You assume wrongly that my future based comment needs to be built in now. I am showing you the curve TODAY while speaking to what it shows as the demand (up and right) while telling you that until that type of demand is met (3B people get more access) then the measures you advocate for to try and slow Canadian Oil production and keep it dirty and expensive won't work.

You resort to 'of course price will impact demand' in the wrong headed (and again failed lefty belief) that we can impact Canadian oil prices only and keep it dirtier and thus change that demand curve, and have less people then buy oil and gas. YOu are wrong. It will continue to go up and right regardless. The only thing you can impact is WHO supplies the needed oil and gas, not its over all demand. Not yet.

In the future once that demand is met, and with the continued expansion of renewables you can then cut back, significantly over time any need for fossil fuels.

But, hey you probable have some online protest to do over Canada's sector thinking you are making some difference while not realizing the only difference you are making is enriching Shale producers who are the ones duping you to protest on their behalf.