this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
88 points (88.6% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
243 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rab@lemmy.ca 52 points 8 months ago (1 children)

From a housing perspective, yeah, there are currently too many. That's a policy failure not related to immigration itself though. The housing problem could be easily solved and then this level of immigration would make sense.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I mean depends on how you define easily.

Even assuming infinite money, Canada has built roughly the same number of houses per year since the 90s. This means we have roughly the same number of skilled and experienced carpenters, roofers, plumbers, etc that work in new builds.

This means that if tomorrow we passed legislation eliminating every single bureaucratic red tape AND convinced developers to build everywhere they have land to do so, we would take years to catch up with the point where our houses:population ratio is back among the rest of the western world.

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Just limiting how many properties a person/corporation can own would solve the problem alone. Tax should exponentially increase after 2+ properties.

Make coop housing viable, currently it's almost impossible to start one.

Gov should be building housing too, just like the ww2 houses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry_box_houses

In addition, feds should be building housing to house every single person, unconditionally. On the topic of homelessness it's the only way to reintegrate folks into society. Even if, say, 80% do nothing but shoot up in their free housing, it's still cheaper for taxpayers when you consider the cost of taking care of folks on the street and the problems that causes. And just by building housing stock you're making good entry level jobs that don't require university education.

And this may be controversial, but non-Canadians should pay a higher mortgage rate. Finland does this and they have probably the best housing situation on the planet. They are actually the ones who pioneered the idea of unconditionally housing everyone, IIRC.

Canada has built roughly the same number of houses per year since the 90s.

Yes but we also weren't taking 1 million newcomers per year in the 90s. If you want these immigration numbers you need to have a plan to make it work.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

I can agree it would help, but we're at an all time low for housing to population. A Fraser institute study, so there's a definite conservative bias to their presentation and info, but it shows how long this has been coming.

In theory, we should be okay - Fraser report shows were at 424 housing units per capita, and most households are an average of 2.4 people, which means in theory wevs got enough housing.

But comparison to other countries show that, in general, we need about 10% more houses (closer to the 471 G7 average) in order to feel more balanced. Most other European countries have more

I agree with all your proposals, but they all require land/housing already built OR the people available to build them, and THAT would be the real bottleneck

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Near me there are TONS of empty places, the developing is not the issue. Nobody can afford them. Hell I don't even own and the place next to me sat empty for 3 months because it was going at an absurd rent for the size.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago

It's worth noting that government housing programs started scaling back in the 80s. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 43 points 8 months ago (2 children)

We don't have too many immigrants, we have too many houses being wasted as "InVeStMeNtS" and too many rich fucks not paying taxes choking out the economy and social services.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 8 months ago

They only polled people that have such investments

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

We don’t have too many investment properties (we do but that’s not the issue)

We aren’t building up non-traditional cities

We are relying on private sector for housing

Road based civil planning

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 38 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Thanks, municipalities, by trying to persevere the character of your neighbourhoods, you've managed to destroy the character of Canada.

People are upset about immigrants because of housing. Housing is a problem because cities made it de jure illegal.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think this is it. The survey points to rational thinking amongst the most severely affected, not a racist aversion.

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They (upper class) want it to sound racist though. Immigration plus housing crunch is making people who own property incredibly rich

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Ooooof, now that's a spicy conjecture! I don't think this is done consciously by most but it doesn't change the effects. 🀭

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

I think it's definitely done consciously by politicians though, as the majority of MPs are landlords

[–] Timbits@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

But immigrants make a good scapegoat.

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 36 points 8 months ago (17 children)

The real story:

Just 10 per cent of Canadians who think there is too much immigration say their concern is that Canadians will become β€œa minority” in their own country. Only eight per cent say new immigrants don’t adhere to Canadian values and just four per cent believe that immigration is bringing criminals to the country. Eighteen per cent worry that immigrants are taking jobs from Canadians.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 18 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Yeah, but if we said "Half of Canadians are sick of late-stage capitalism's worst feature" it wouldn't go down as well with the people who buy and sell advertising.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Woah those are some healthy looking numbers, ty

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Most Canadians are not anti immigrants, they are anti housing crisis and anti healthcare strain. The former is the results of capitalist decision making/lobbying, latter is the results of cuts in government budget for healthcare (a favorite policy of libertarian/conservative parties) and extreme bureaucracy and aversion to innovative healthcare management designed for efficiency (this is a problem in many parts of the world, and we all know Canadian governments, provincial or federal, are not known for their efficiency).

The lack of technocrats in government is a massive issue. Holland (fed) and DubΓ© (QC) both worked in financial services before going into politics. Dix (BC) worked as a journalist, and it's unclear what Jones (ON) was doing before politics. Why aren't doctors, nurses, healthcare management experts (i.e., people who actually ran hospitals and worked with doctors) getting elected and taking those positions?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

And the other half arrived this year

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Canada needs more people. It also needs more infrastructure.

Unfortunately Canada is doing a good job tackling #1, but a bad job tackling #2 because the financials work out to be just fine to do so.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Tell that half to go back to where they came from. LOL

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago (12 children)

Where is that if I was born here

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Concerns over immigration are mostly about the economy

https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768

https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/new-immig.pdf

It is incorrect to think of economic activity as a limited resource that must be defended against the rapacious outsider. Economic activity is not only consumed by people, but also created by them. Value is a product of human labour. In fact, Canada should be looking to increase it's population rapidly so that the market that exists here can develop enough of a gravity of its own that we aren't so reliant on the US market.

Outsourcing and automation have been far, far more impactful with regards to wages. NAFTA (now CUSMA) as well has hollowed out a lot of our economy so that the only real growth sectors are resource extraction which feeds the US market, and real estate. Protectionism is a bit of a dirty word however I think it's necessary to develop industries where we can create value-added products out of our own natural resources, and ultimately build a much more varied and healthy economy. And we need far more people than we are birthing locally to do that.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The new economic activity created by human labor requires resources from nature. More metal for cars, more hair spray for hairdos. More concrete for buildings and more corn for cinemas. Economic activity can expand under conditions of no significant resource constraints. Unfortunately we've hit a resource constraint in the most in-demand locations - housing - due to all the known causes like zoning, etc. Regardless of the causes, it's a constraint that increases the costs across the economy and swallows value, but it is felt the most by the lower parts of the wage scale. It may be wise to balance that while solving the resource constraint in order to avoid destabilization. People will vote against the precarity of their housing situation whether it negatively affects other priorities or not and for a good reason. Keeping the roof over ones head in a country with non-functional safety nets against homelessness is top priority. And so the results of the survey sounds pretty rational to me. I think this sentiment would go away if we build a shit ton of non-market plattenbautens in the major metropolitan areas.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Economics Explained recently did a video reviewing Canada's immigration policies. Most advanced economies have low birthrates and make up for it with immigration. Accepting an immigrant is (economically) much better than someone having a baby. A baby needs decades before it contributes to the economy. An immigrant is often educated and skilled in a desired field and will immediately contribute to the economy.

However, Canada might be the first country to stumble upon some downsides to immigration. Mainly, student visas might not contribute as much to the economy as once thought, Canadian immigrants leave to work in the US at incredibly high rates, and Canadian metropolitan cities are some of the most expensive to live in worldwide and immigration is exacerbating the issue (the issue isn't immigration though, it's a focus on building single detached family homes over high density housing).

Just don't scroll down into the comment section. It's mostly just people being racist. I sincerely hope those comments aren't coming from Canadians. (The channel also did a video on why African countries struggle economically a few days later and the comment section was even worse)

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't disagree with the general claims you made, and I'm not commenting on the veracity of the specific linked video, but in general EE isn't a reputable source for economics knowledge or analysis. If that's news, check Money & Macro's critique on a couple of EEs videos. It's a clown show.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Unfortunately we have what is basically a MAGA crowd too. In fact, some of them are dumb enough to actually use the term and wear stuff with MAGA on it. Yes, technically Canada is part of America, but I bet if you ask them if it covers Mexico or South America, they would either have not even thought of that or be unsure how to answer, as it wasn't part of the videos they watched that made them mad.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] franklin@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's insane to me that anyone in Canada would hold this opinion given that our economy is on the verge of ruin due to the lack of available labour and the massive amount of retirees we have. Where do they think this money will come from?

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 22 points 8 months ago (9 children)

We don't have a lack of labour. That's a myth the neoliberals are pushing to keep wages low. There's a lack of businesses who are willing to raise their wages to the point that people would be willing to work for them.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And keeping businesses dependent on sub-livable wage labor is problematic.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. We bring in immigrants because our economy is addicted to paying poverty wages. People will post the studies showing that immigration doesn't suppress the wages of good paying jobs as though that's a winning argument, but what they're ignoring is that that's because the economy has a built-in assumption that immigrants are all paid starvation wages.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That's an argument to end the exploitative TFW program and increase unionization rates. Not against immigration generally.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I agree. But that's not the approach the Liberal party is taking, and their approach deserves criticism.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago

They've been told it's the fault of the others, the immigrants. And they believed that.

It's the same crew who supported the Karen Convoy of Needle-weenie Arsonists, those who flew the racist flags and blocked parliament and held up trade. Guns? Yep. Bigotry? Yep. Supported by the Conservative Party members? Yep.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

We are also in the middle of a housing crisis that has been developing for years. Canada is in a tough spot to agressively grow from immigration and many people feel like their quality of life is threatened by the economic conditions, housing crisis and healthcare crisis. It is understandable to be worried more people without the housing to support them could stress these systems further.

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I agree, I wish we would target our housing crisis at the root, our outdated zoning laws. The laws only allow low density single family housing.

The ensures car dependency and adds additional cost.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Car dependancy is bleeding many cities dry. It is simply too expensive abd destructive to maintain at this scale.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] livus@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Since 1 in 4 Canadians is a first generation immigrant themselves, I'm wondering if this 50% figure represents 2/3 of all Canadian-born Canadians.

Or maybe some leopards eating faces is going on?

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

More like ladder-kicking. Every ladder-kicker is going to hell, 100%

EDIT: To make it even more poetic, they get to climb a ladder to heaven before god kicks it down and they fall down to hell.

[–] O_i@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

lol the irony

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Think of how stupid the average person is and now remember that half of them are stupider than that.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

40K nets around 32K in Ontario. 1 bedroom rent in Toronto's suburbs is over 2K. That's 24K per year. 24K / 40K = 60% of gross income to housing. 24K / 32K = 8K leftover after housing. 8K / 12 = $666 per month for all else. This number falls to $333 on minimum wage. Monthly transit pass is $156. If you live outside TO proper, you often pay for two passes. Mississauga's is $131. A cheap phone bill with data that could somewhat replace Internet is $35. Internet connection is $50+. Have you gone to a grocery store recently? Better not have any unplanned expenses.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί