[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canada is a better place now than it was when we only let in white Europeans (even then, swarthy people like Italians and Greeks were discriminated against after WW2).

Maybe you prefer the white bread version of Canada, but I prefer our multi-cultural version today. Thanks but no thanks!

To each his own.

When Europeans were our primary immigrants, they assimilated much easier and contributed much faster than is currently the case.

I doubt we'd be able to get all the immigrants we seem to want from just Europe and the US, so don't worry, we won't become any more white bread than we already are. Just stay a little more white bread for a little longer. It's got nothing to do with the color of the bread, and, food aside, I prefer the taste of Euro-centric culture vs what else is out there.

And I find that some other cultures (Asian for example) have wonderful aspects to them as well. True, our European heritage has done very well for us, but if we continue to focus on our past instead of the future (let's face it, Asia is the future), we're only dooming future generations of Canadians to mediocrity.

I feel our multi-cultural heritage will help us plenty in the coming decades - economically and politically for sure, maybe even militarily.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canada is a better place now than it was when we only let in white Europeans (even then, swarthy people like Italians and Greeks were discriminated against after WW2).

Maybe you prefer the white bread version of Canada, but I prefer our multi-cultural version today. Thanks but no thanks!

To each his own.

When Europeans were our primary immigrants, they assimilated much easier and contributed much faster than is currently the case.

I doubt we'd be able to get all the immigrants we seem to want from just Europe and the US, so don't worry, we won't become any more white bread than we already are. Just stay a little more white bread for a little longer. It's got nothing to do with the color of the bread, and, food aside, I prefer the taste of Euro-centric culture vs what else is out there.

And I find that some other cultures (Asian for example) have wonderful aspects to them as well. True, our European heritage has done very well for us, but if we continue to focus on our past instead of the future (let's face it, Asia is the future), we're only dooming future generations of Canadians to mediocrity.

I feel our multi-cultural heritage will help us plenty in the coming decades - economically and politically for sure, maybe even militarily.

Nothing wrong with broadening our culture. There's two things that I don't like about our immigration policy:

One is that we don't adjust the numbers we need according to our needs at the moment - take in the same horde every year

another is that we take all sorts of family members we just have to take care of with social programs - like grannies and grandpas

another is that we get in huge hordes from one country/culture who clusterfuck together and don't integrate.

There's three, three things I don't like about our immgration policy.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

To each his own.

When Europeans were our primary immigrants, they assimilated much easier and contributed much faster than is currently the case.

I doubt we'd be able to get all the immigrants we seem to want from just Europe and the US, so don't worry, we won't become any more white bread than we already are. Just stay a little more white bread for a little longer. It's got nothing to do with the color of the bread, and, food aside, I prefer the taste of Euro-centric culture vs what else is out there.

And I find that some other cultures (Asian for example) have wonderful aspects to them as well. True, our European heritage has done very well for us, but if we continue to focus on our past instead of the future (let's face it, Asia is the future), we're only dooming future generations of Canadians to mediocrity.

I feel our multi-cultural heritage will help us plenty in the coming decades - economically and politically for sure, maybe even militarily.

Nothing wrong with broadening our culture. There's two things that I don't like about our immigration policy:

One is that we don't adjust the numbers we need according to our needs at the moment - take in the same horde every year

another is that we take all sorts of family members we just have to take care of with social programs - like grannies and grandpas

another is that we get in huge hordes from one country/culture who clusterfuck together and don't integrate.

There's three, three things I don't like about our immgration policy.

We do alter the numbers every year, but it's not by a very considerable sum. I assume you're suggesting that in poor economic times we should drop immigration from 250,000/year to 100,000/year (or something like that)? In theory, that would be fine, but given our demographics (a rapidly aging society) that could affect future taxpayers negatively.

And we don't take all that many family members per year, something like around 20,000, so it's not like it's a huge number of grannies and grandpas that are going to cost us a fortune. And by letting those people in, it actually allows many immigrant families to have two incomes - without paying for daycare.

When I was young, several friends of mine had their grandparents living with them, allowing both parents to work, increasing their standard of living dramatically. One family even had grandpa working P/T in a restaurant. All of that means higher taxes for the government. I don't know if that balances out the potential health care costs, but raising immigrants standard of living isn't a bad thing IMHO.

As for your last complaint, there's not much we can do about it unfortunately (courtesy of the Charter of Rights I believe). It would be nice if we could make living in cities other than the big three (Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal), but we can't.

Frankly, if it was possible, I'd make immigration contingent on living outside of those areas - one way might be to ensure that employment is lined up for them elsewhere. We have lots of places (the Maritimes, rural areas) that need people and immigration could help in some regards.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

We do alter the numbers every year, but it's not by a very considerable sum. I assume you're suggesting that in poor economic times we should drop immigration from 250,000/year to 100,000/year (or something like that)? In theory, that would be fine, but given our demographics (a rapidly aging society) that could affect future taxpayers negatively.

And we don't take all that many family members per year, something like around 20,000, so it's not like it's a huge number of grannies and grandpas that are going to cost us a fortune. And by letting those people in, it actually allows many immigrant families to have two incomes - without paying for daycare.

When I was young, several friends of mine had their grandparents living with them, allowing both parents to work, increasing their standard of living dramatically. One family even had grandpa working P/T in a restaurant. All of that means higher taxes for the government. I don't know if that balances out the potential health care costs, but raising immigrants standard of living isn't a bad thing IMHO.

As for your last complaint, there's not much we can do about it unfortunately (courtesy of the Charter of Rights I believe). It would be nice if we could make living in cities other than the big three (Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal), but we can't.

Frankly, if it was possible, I'd make immigration contingent on living outside of those areas - one way might be to ensure that employment is lined up for them elsewhere. We have lots of places (the Maritimes, rural areas) that need people and immigration could help in some regards.

I'm less worried about future taxpayers than I am about Canadians presently out of work and not paying taxes - that impacts the govt coffers too. Also the govt spends 18 billion more on immigrants than it gets back in taxes - a net loss. That's also going to impact future tax payers - ie the national debt. But if times are good, and Canadians are taking care of, we can open the doors again if we really need more people.

If we're concerned about an aging population, it doesn't make sense to import grannies and grandpas. In fact we should put an age limit of 30 on immigrants.

We can do something about immigrants clustering up together by limiting the number from any one country/culture. This is something you just don't see with European or American immigrants - can't really tell they're here because the blend.

[Bacardi4206]

If I had a choice to choose who immigrated here, I'd probally choose Americans as one of them. Next to Irish, Scotish and British. I'd also take Swedish, Polish and pretty much any asian country.

Americans, Irish, Scotish and British I would take because they have more in common with Canadians, have decent educations and would be just normal citizens. Swedish, Polish and Asians are pretty much tolerant people IMO, well not so much some asians but they are very hard working and out of all the years they have been here. Never heard of any trouble at all regarding any dramatics.

I might bag on America and Americans sometimes but I don't hate most of them. I have too many Americans friends for that. I don't mind American-immigration. All the Americans I can't stand would soon rather die than move to Canada anyways so it's all good.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

I'm less worried about future taxpayers than I am about Canadians presently out of work and not paying taxes - that impacts the govt coffers too. Also the govt spends 18 billion more on immigrants than it gets back in taxes - a net loss. That's also going to impact future tax payers - ie the national debt. But if times are good, and Canadians are taking care of, we can open the doors again if we really need more people.

If we're concerned about an aging population, it doesn't make sense to import grannies and grandpas. In fact we should put an age limit of 30 on immigrants.

We can do something about immigrants clustering up together by limiting the number from any one country/culture. This is something you just don't see with European or American immigrants - can't really tell they're here because the blend.

Well, I don't know how old you are, but unless you're already collecting OAS and CPP, you really should care about future taxpayers, because if we don't have enough, future generations won't pay enough taxes to support those programs.

The government may spend more on immigrants (I assume you have a link or so to prove that point) than it takes in, but that's largely because most of them come here and find our their certification (medical, engineering, whatever) isn't valid here and wind up driving a taxi or working at 7/11 until they can re-certify, which can take up to a decade in some professions.

What immigration does however, is grow the economy. I've yet to hear of any immigrant who comes here with a house or apartment building to live in. Most probably don't bring transportation either, so that's another thing they need to spend money on. Same goes for food, utilities, clothes (most only arrive with a suitcase or two), etc. Immigration helps our economy in two ways: filling low paying jobs most Canadians refuse to do; and by buying consumer goods that create jobs and tax revenues.

And limiting immigration to those over 30 is foolish. Most people under 30 don't have the qualifications (or financial wherewithal) to qualify as a Canadian citizen. Like I said previously, allowing grandparents to immigrate (it takes upwards of 5 years BTW) allows low-income immigrant families to have two incomes, and therefore raise their standard of living (which is exactly why immigrants come to Canada).

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

I'm less worried about future taxpayers than I am about Canadians presently out of work and not paying taxes - that impacts the govt coffers too. Also the govt spends 18 billion more on immigrants than it gets back in taxes - a net loss. That's also going to impact future tax payers - ie the national debt. But if times are good, and Canadians are taking care of, we can open the doors again if we really need more people.

If we're concerned about an aging population, it doesn't make sense to import grannies and grandpas. In fact we should put an age limit of 30 on immigrants.

We can do something about immigrants clustering up together by limiting the number from any one country/culture. This is something you just don't see with European or American immigrants - can't really tell they're here because the blend.

Well, I don't know how old you are, but unless you're already collecting OAS and CPP, you really should care about future taxpayers, because if we don't have enough, future generations won't pay enough taxes to support those programs.

The government may spend more on immigrants (I assume you have a link or so to prove that point) than it takes in, but that's largely because most of them come here and find our their certification (medical, engineering, whatever) isn't valid here and wind up driving a taxi or working at 7/11 until they can re-certify, which can take up to a decade in some professions.

What immigration does however, is grow the economy. I've yet to hear of any immigrant who comes here with a house or apartment building to live in. Most probably don't bring transportation either, so that's another thing they need to spend money on. Same goes for food, utilities, clothes (most only arrive with a suitcase or two), etc. Immigration helps our economy in two ways: filling low paying jobs most Canadians refuse to do; and by buying consumer goods that create jobs and tax revenues.

And limiting immigration to those over 30 is foolish. Most people under 30 don't have the qualifications (or financial wherewithal) to qualify as a Canadian citizen. Like I said previously, allowing grandparents to immigrate (it takes upwards of 5 years BTW) allows low-income immigrant families to have two incomes, and therefore raise their standard of living (which is exactly why immigrants come to Canada).

If you pay attention to this topic, you'll know that to actually make a serious difference in our demographics, Canada would have to take in about 1 million people a year. Good luck with that.

If you're worried about tax payers, does it make sense to add 18 billion costs to the govt every year? That's a lot of tax payers you wouldn't need.

WTF is it with people so happy to relegate immigrants to shit jobs? How about we pay a living wage for every job in the country - Canadians will certainly take those jobs then. What immigrants do is depress wages as they're desperate enough to take any job. That's one reason for that 18 billion dollar deficit - immigrants don't earn enough to pay a lot of taxes.

You say immigration grows the economy. Wouldn't we be better off just building all those houses and cars and letting them rot than building them and then having to pay out 18 billion a year on top of it?

New Zealand and Australia (used to?) limit immigrant age to 40. It doesn't make sense to say we need to change our demographics to younger people and then import a bunch of old ones. If you want to get younger people in this country, retrict immigration to parents who bring in at least 4 juvenile children. Or just import a bunch of orphans from war torn countries.

[PostFactum]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

I'm less worried about future taxpayers than I am about Canadians presently out of work and not paying taxes - that impacts the govt coffers too. Also the govt spends 18 billion more on immigrants than it gets back in taxes - a net loss. That's also going to impact future tax payers - ie the national debt. But if times are good, and Canadians are taking care of, we can open the doors again if we really need more people.

If we're concerned about an aging population, it doesn't make sense to import grannies and grandpas. In fact we should put an age limit of 30 on immigrants.

We can do something about immigrants clustering up together by limiting the number from any one country/culture. This is something you just don't see with European or American immigrants - can't really tell they're here because the blend.

Well, I don't know how old you are, but unless you're already collecting OAS and CPP, you really should care about future taxpayers, because if we don't have enough, future generations won't pay enough taxes to support those programs.

The government may spend more on immigrants (I assume you have a link or so to prove that point) than it takes in, but that's largely because most of them come here and find our their certification (medical, engineering, whatever) isn't valid here and wind up driving a taxi or working at 7/11 until they can re-certify, which can take up to a decade in some professions.

What immigration does however, is grow the economy. I've yet to hear of any immigrant who comes here with a house or apartment building to live in. Most probably don't bring transportation either, so that's another thing they need to spend money on. Same goes for food, utilities, clothes (most only arrive with a suitcase or two), etc. Immigration helps our economy in two ways: filling low paying jobs most Canadians refuse to do; and by buying consumer goods that create jobs and tax revenues.

And limiting immigration to those over 30 is foolish. Most people under 30 don't have the qualifications (or financial wherewithal) to qualify as a Canadian citizen. Like I said previously, allowing grandparents to immigrate (it takes upwards of 5 years BTW) allows low-income immigrant families to have two incomes, and therefore raise their standard of living (which is exactly why immigrants come to Canada).

If you pay attention to this topic, you'll know that to actually make a serious difference in our demographics, Canada would have to take in about 1 million people a year. Good luck with that.

If you're worried about tax payers, does it make sense to add 18 billion costs to the govt every year? That's a lot of tax payers you wouldn't need.

WTF is it with people so happy to relegate immigrants to shit jobs? How about we pay a living wage for every job in the country - Canadians will certainly take those jobs then. What immigrants do is depress wages as they're desperate enough to take any job. That's one reason for that 18 billion dollar deficit - immigrants don't earn enough to pay a lot of taxes.

You say immigration grows the economy. Wouldn't we be better off just building all those houses and cars and letting them rot than building them and then having to pay out 18 billion a year on top of it?

New Zealand and Australia (used to?) limit immigrant age to 40. It doesn't make sense to say we need to change our demographics to younger people and then import a bunch of old ones. If you want to get younger people in this country, retrict immigration to parents who bring in at least 4 juvenile children. Or just import a bunch of orphans from war torn countries.

Do not afraid, soon immigrants from China will come and they'll make a lot of children, the new young Canadian generation=))

[rickc]

andyt andyt:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-quiet-americans-who-are-canadas-invisible-immigrants/article1697253/

Now these are people we should be allowing to the head of the line:

$1:

These invisible immigrants – there are one million, more than at any time since the Vietnam War – are a unique group. According to a leading American geographer, they come to Canada not for economic opportunities, but for the country’s set of values.

Americans are attracted by their view of Canada’s more liberal culture. That includes support for a universal public health-care system, positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians, gun control laws and multiculturalism.

All we need is a surefire test to keep the Teabaggers and their ilk out.

Hey I know a bunch of people that we Americans could fast tract to the head of the line.Take the inhabitants of the Capreni Green housing project in Chicago.I'm sure they support universal health care as they are all on medicade now.They have never paid a dime for thier medical benefits before.Check one.All firearms were illegal in Chicago untill this supreme court decision ruled otherwise.They support gun control,check two.I don't know how they feel about the gays,you will have to ask them.Multiculturalism? Sure thing man! Cultures from all over Africa are represented at this housing complex.But lets not stop there:We have hundreds of ghettos,oops I mean low income housing projects all across America that we could add to this fast tract list.I am willing to bet that if Canada wanted to fast tract these immigrants,Americans would be more than happy to pay the relocation costs,and then some.

I'm being a smartass for show.If a country has an immigration policy,it has a policy! There well always be people looking to linejump for a country as fantastic as Canada!Don't make the same mistakes we have made in the States.If there is a line,there is a line.Do not start to artificially move the line due to politics.You have worked hard to get where you are.Make sure that your immigrants work hard too.Do not let a bunch of freeloaders into your country just to gain the moral high ground.You would win the battle but lose the war.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well, I don't know how old you are, but unless you're already collecting OAS and CPP, you really should care about future taxpayers, because if we don't have enough, future generations won't pay enough taxes to support those programs.

The government may spend more on immigrants (I assume you have a link or so to prove that point) than it takes in, but that's largely because most of them come here and find our their certification (medical, engineering, whatever) isn't valid here and wind up driving a taxi or working at 7/11 until they can re-certify, which can take up to a decade in some professions.

What immigration does however, is grow the economy. I've yet to hear of any immigrant who comes here with a house or apartment building to live in. Most probably don't bring transportation either, so that's another thing they need to spend money on. Same goes for food, utilities, clothes (most only arrive with a suitcase or two), etc. Immigration helps our economy in two ways: filling low paying jobs most Canadians refuse to do; and by buying consumer goods that create jobs and tax revenues.

And limiting immigration to those over 30 is foolish. Most people under 30 don't have the qualifications (or financial wherewithal) to qualify as a Canadian citizen. Like I said previously, allowing grandparents to immigrate (it takes upwards of 5 years BTW) allows low-income immigrant families to have two incomes, and therefore raise their standard of living (which is exactly why immigrants come to Canada).

If you pay attention to this topic, you'll know that to actually make a serious difference in our demographics, Canada would have to take in about 1 million people a year. Good luck with that.

If you're worried about tax payers, does it make sense to add 18 billion costs to the govt every year? That's a lot of tax payers you wouldn't need.

WTF is it with people so happy to relegate immigrants to shit jobs? How about we pay a living wage for every job in the country - Canadians will certainly take those jobs then. What immigrants do is depress wages as they're desperate enough to take any job. That's one reason for that 18 billion dollar deficit - immigrants don't earn enough to pay a lot of taxes.

You say immigration grows the economy. Wouldn't we be better off just building all those houses and cars and letting them rot than building them and then having to pay out 18 billion a year on top of it?

New Zealand and Australia (used to?) limit immigrant age to 40. It doesn't make sense to say we need to change our demographics to younger people and then import a bunch of old ones. If you want to get younger people in this country, retrict immigration to parents who bring in at least 4 juvenile children. Or just import a bunch of orphans from war torn countries.

You're not listening. We allow in about 20,000 family class immigrants per year (the grandmas/grandpas you don't think we should) out of over 250,000 immigrants per year. Therefore, less than 10% of all immigrants are those medicare-drains on the economy. Hardly the teeming masses of old people you make it sound like.

And our immigration policy right now is why Canada's population is growing, because it is enough (combined with births in Canada) to grow it, so I think your 1 million figure is off. After all, if you were correct, the last few census' would have shown a drop in total population.

And I don't want immigrants to work in shit jobs, but courtesy of rules and regulations from both our government and professional associations, they do. In some ways it's a good thing, because how well trained is a doctor from Zimbabwe compared to one educated here? My guess is that the medical technology in Zimbabwe is far lower and there is about Canadian medicine they don't know. So it makes sense to have them re-certify. But for some jobs (like photocopier repairman), why do they need to re-certify?

You want to pay everybody a living wage? Fine, let's start by defining a living wage...$25,000 per year? $35,000/year? $50,000/year? You tell me. Because if unskilled jobs such as taxi driver, convenience store clerk, fast food restaurant clerk, etc goes much higher than it is right now, inflation (because of the rise in labour cost) will make it a non-living wage anyways, and it'll wind up affecting all Canadians, not just immigrants. And I don't believe immigrants do depress wages, because most Canadians don't want to be janitors, taxi drivers, or clerks at 7/11.

BTW, you've tossed out that $18 billion figure twice now, time for a link or I'll have to call BS.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

You're not listening. We allow in about 20,000 family class immigrants per year (the grandmas/grandpas you don't think we should) out of over 250,000 immigrants per year. Therefore, less than 10% of all immigrants are those medicare-drains on the economy. Hardly the teeming masses of old people you make it sound like.

And our immigration policy right now is why Canada's population is growing, because it is enough (combined with births in Canada) to grow it, so I think your 1 million figure is off. After all, if you were correct, the last few census' would have shown a drop in total population.

And I don't want immigrants to work in shit jobs, but courtesy of rules and regulations from both our government and professional associations, they do. In some ways it's a good thing, because how well trained is a doctor from Zimbabwe compared to one educated here? My guess is that the medical technology in Zimbabwe is far lower and there is about Canadian medicine they don't know. So it makes sense to have them re-certify. But for some jobs (like photocopier repairman), why do they need to re-certify?

You want to pay everybody a living wage? Fine, let's start by defining a living wage...$25,000 per year? $35,000/year? $50,000/year? You tell me. Because if unskilled jobs such as taxi driver, convenience store clerk, fast food restaurant clerk, etc goes much higher than it is right now, inflation (because of the rise in labour cost) will make it a non-living wage anyways, and it'll wind up affecting all Canadians, not just immigrants. And I don't believe immigrants do depress wages, because most Canadians don't want to be janitors, taxi drivers, or clerks at 7/11.

BTW, you've tossed out that $18 billion figure twice now, time for a link or I'll have to call BS.

You're not reading/comprehending.

In order to change the aging of Canada - ie relative numbers of older vs younger people, we would need to import about 1 million younger people every year - otherwise the graying will continue. We'd better think of something else than just trying to import our way out of trouble, as we've been able to do in the past. And the present source countries face the same demographic dilemma we do.

One reason shit jobs are shit jobs - ie low paid, is because of the competition for them from people who have no choice. Less immgrants taking those jobs means that magically they become more valuable and higher paid. A living wage in Vancouver has been defined at $18. (I'm sure $12 would be plenty in other places). Once reason it's so high is because all the immigrants flooding in driving up the price of housing to the least affordable in the world. It's the least affordable not because prices are the highest in the world, but because prices are highest compared to median wage in Vancouver, which is much lower than other expensive cities. It's lower because immigrants are driving it down.

You guys always want a link - I read newspapers. If you want to search for it, look on the Vancouver Sun website. It's from a study by the Fraser Institute. The same article made the point about immigrants depressing wages while straining infrastructure. Surprising that a rightwing thinktank would be against depressing wages.

By your argument, nobody should get wage increases, since it would fuel inflation and they'd all be worse off. What I'm talking about is a redistribution of wealth - the lower paid people get a bit more, the highest paid people a bit less. You know, how it used to be until the neocons took over.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

You're not reading/comprehending.

In order to change the aging of Canada - ie relative numbers of older vs younger people, we would need to import about 1 million younger people every year - otherwise the graying will continue. We'd better think of something else than just trying to import our way out of trouble, as we've been able to do in the past. And the present source countries face the same demographic dilemma we do.

One reason shit jobs are shit jobs - ie low paid, is because of the competition for them from people who have no choice. Less immgrants taking those jobs means that magically they become more valuable and higher paid. A living wage in Vancouver has been defined at $18. (I'm sure $12 would be plenty in other places). Once reason it's so high is because all the immigrants flooding in driving up the price of housing to the least affordable in the world. It's the least affordable not because prices are the highest in the world, but because prices are highest compared to median wage in Vancouver, which is much lower than other expensive cities. It's lower because immigrants are driving it down.

You guys always want a link - I read newspapers. If you want to search for it, look on the Vancouver Sun website. It's from a study by the Fraser Institute. The same article made the point about immigrants depressing wages while straining infrastructure. Surprising that a rightwing thinktank would be against depressing wages.

By your argument, nobody should get wage increases, since it would fuel inflation and they'd all be worse off. What I'm talking about is a redistribution of wealth - the lower paid people get a bit more, the highest paid people a bit less. You know, how it used to be until the neocons took over.

Fine, you read newspapers. Use Google to find evidence yourself. It's not my job to find evidence to support your claims, that's yours and yours alone. If you're too lazy to do so, then I'll just have to assume that you are either incorrect (maybe it was $1.8 billion not 18 as you claim), or that you read it in an op/ed piece, which given your biased source (Vancouver Sun), wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Shit jobs are shit jobs because either most people don't want to do them and/or they need zero skill to do. How much skill does it take to turn on a gas pump, push a mop, or scoop ice cream at Baskin Robbins? Not much, and I know because at some point in my life, I've done all of them. Those jobs usually only attract Canadians with no skills (high school students) or those who are semi-retired/retired and looking for a few extra bucks to help pay bills. Shit jobs are like public transit, once you are no longer forced to use it, you don't (I've yet meet someone who dreamed of working at McDonald's their entire life).

Granted there are cases where a labour shortage where shit jobs command huge salaries. Fort McMurray is proof of that. The average wage for shit jobs there is somewhere around $15/hour (almost double Alberta's minimum wage BTW). So if high salaries are all that are necessary for a good standard of living, then burger flippers in Ft Mac should be living high off the hog, right? That ain't the case, because even though they earn big bucks, the cost of everything else is through the roof too, from rent to laundry detergent to a night out on the town. Part of that is due to high demand/low supply, but part of it is also due to the inflation of salaries there in the past decade.

I'm not against anyone getting a raise or a decent salary. Anyone who works hard and shows that they deserve a good wage, whether it's through dedication and hard work or extra training/schooling, deserves it. But there is no sane reason to suddenly decide that every janitor, burger flipper and gas station clerk in the country go from around $8 an hour to $12 overnight. That would cause massive inflation and wipe out their raise overnight anyways.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Fine, you read newspapers. Use Google to find evidence yourself. It's not my job to find evidence to support your claims, that's yours and yours alone. If you're too lazy to do so, then I'll just have to assume that you are either incorrect (maybe it was $1.8 billion not 18 as you claim), or that you read it in an op/ed piece, which given your biased source (Vancouver Sun), wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Shit jobs are shit jobs because either most people don't want to do them and/or they need zero skill to do. How much skill does it take to turn on a gas pump, push a mop, or scoop ice cream at Baskin Robbins? Not much, and I know because at some point in my life, I've done all of them. Those jobs usually only attract Canadians with no skills (high school students) or those who are semi-retired/retired and looking for a few extra bucks to help pay bills. Shit jobs are like public transit, once you are no longer forced to use it, you don't (I've yet meet someone who dreamed of working at McDonald's their entire life).

Granted there are cases where a labour shortage where shit jobs command huge salaries. Fort McMurray is proof of that. The average wage for shit jobs there is somewhere around $15/hour (almost double Alberta's minimum wage BTW). So if high salaries are all that are necessary for a good standard of living, then burger flippers in Ft Mac should be living high off the hog, right? That ain't the case, because even though they earn big bucks, the cost of everything else is through the roof too, from rent to laundry detergent to a night out on the town. Part of that is due to high demand/low supply, but part of it is also due to the inflation of salaries there in the past decade.

I'm not against anyone getting a raise or a decent salary. Anyone who works hard and shows that they deserve a good wage, whether it's through dedication and hard work or extra training/schooling, deserves it. But there is no sane reason to suddenly decide that every janitor, burger flipper and gas station clerk in the country go from around $8 an hour to $12 overnight. That would cause massive inflation and wipe out their raise overnight anyways.

You want to doubt the 18 bill, that's up to you. If the Vancouver Sun is biased, exactly what unbiased source do you get your immigration information from?

Shit jobs don't require much skill. They're still hard work and people who do them should be paid a living wage. Nice excuse about kids and seniors doing them. Total bullshit of course. You brought up taxi drivers yourself - how many kids and seniors do that? Janitors? Security guards? On and on.

The way to raise wages for low paid jobs is not to by fiat but by supply and demand. Reduce the supply, and voila, wages go up. Why are you so eager to live in a society with huge income differentials? Do you not see the social problems that causes?

[Yogi]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

You're not reading/comprehending.

In order to change the aging of Canada - ie relative numbers of older vs younger people, we would need to import about 1 million younger people every year - otherwise the graying will continue. We'd better think of something else than just trying to import our way out of trouble, as we've been able to do in the past. And the present source countries face the same demographic dilemma we do.

One reason shit jobs are shit jobs - ie low paid, is because of the competition for them from people who have no choice. Less immgrants taking those jobs means that magically they become more valuable and higher paid. A living wage in Vancouver has been defined at $18. (I'm sure $12 would be plenty in other places). Once reason it's so high is because all the immigrants flooding in driving up the price of housing to the least affordable in the world. It's the least affordable not because prices are the highest in the world, but because prices are highest compared to median wage in Vancouver, which is much lower than other expensive cities. It's lower because immigrants are driving it down.

You guys always want a link - I read newspapers. If you want to search for it, look on the Vancouver Sun website. It's from a study by the Fraser Institute. The same article made the point about immigrants depressing wages while straining infrastructure. Surprising that a rightwing thinktank would be against depressing wages.

By your argument, nobody should get wage increases, since it would fuel inflation and they'd all be worse off. What I'm talking about is a redistribution of wealth - the lower paid people get a bit more, the highest paid people a bit less. You know, how it used to be until the neocons took over.

Fine, you read newspapers. Use Google to find evidence yourself. It's not my job to find evidence to support your claims, that's yours and yours alone. If you're too lazy to do so, then I'll just have to assume that you are either incorrect (maybe it was $1.8 billion not 18 as you claim), or that you read it in an op/ed piece, which given your biased source (Vancouver Sun), wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Shit jobs are shit jobs because either most people don't want to do them and/or they need zero skill to do. How much skill does it take to turn on a gas pump, push a mop, or scoop ice cream at Baskin Robbins? Not much, and I know because at some point in my life, I've done all of them. Those jobs usually only attract Canadians with no skills (high school students) or those who are semi-retired/retired and looking for a few extra bucks to help pay bills. Shit jobs are like public transit, once you are no longer forced to use it, you don't (I've yet meet someone who dreamed of working at McDonald's their entire life).

Granted there are cases where a labour shortage where shit jobs command huge salaries. Fort McMurray is proof of that. The average wage for shit jobs there is somewhere around $15/hour (almost double Alberta's minimum wage BTW). So if high salaries are all that are necessary for a good standard of living, then burger flippers in Ft Mac should be living high off the hog, right? That ain't the case, because even though they earn big bucks, the cost of everything else is through the roof too, from rent to laundry detergent to a night out on the town. Part of that is due to high demand/low supply, but part of it is also due to the inflation of salaries there in the past decade.

I'm not against anyone getting a raise or a decent salary. Anyone who works hard and shows that they deserve a good wage, whether it's through dedication and hard work or extra training/schooling, deserves it. But there is no sane reason to suddenly decide that every janitor, burger flipper and gas station clerk in the country go from around $8 an hour to $12 overnight. That would cause massive inflation and wipe out their raise overnight anyways.

Boots, andy obviously doesn't understand the dynamics of starting/building up/running a small business. Small business being the economic back-bone of Alberta.

Take my business for eg. Flooring. Typical job.-100 sq. yds carpet install @ $5.50 sq yd.. In my opinion, this type/amount is worth a hell of a lot more, but $5.50 is all the market will bear! ie; the customer refuses to pay any more than that.
This amount of carpet will do a typical 3 br. bungalow. Livingroom-diningroom-3 br-hallway and 12 stairs and stringers. This is a full days work for 2 1 installer and 1 'helper' who has at least some experience, (but no certifications).
Paying said helper minimum of $18.00 per hour ( the min for this type of work in my industry) =180.00 per day.
Deduct the $180.00 from $550.00 leaves $370.00.
From the $370.00 deduct thebasic supplies that I have to pay for:
Seam tape $11.00- Smoothedge $37.00-Staples & nails $ 17.00- non-reusable knife blades $12.00-contact cement $8.00- for a total of $85.00. Deduct that from $370.00 leaves a balance of $285.00.
Now, the toal job pays out @ $550.00, this also includes going to the warehouse and measuring from the full roll of carpet, making all the cuts, loading and hauling them to the jobsite in a van which is owned and paid for by the installer- all the while, the helper is being paid $18.00/hr. The installer isn't earning any money yet! Not until carpet is actually being installed.
So let's now include the van, gas, insurance, registration etc.
Not done yet!
What about all the tools required? Who do you think pays for them? Let see now. Basic tools for this job;
Carpet kicker-$165.00 Straightedge-$107.00-Seaming iron and electric stapler-$450.00-hammer stapler-$140.00-T square $40.00 Two FULL SETS of various hand tools as well.-knee pads-$60.00. Various other hand tools-ie; ONE Airway knife is $42.00!
Eventually, these tools do wear out. Guess who gets to replace them!


So while the helper is getting paid $180.00 for the day without supplying anything-once the carpet is 'in place' the helper spends a lot of time doing SFA or picking up scraps etc.
the installer ( in my case, Inter-provincially Certified Journeyman) is supplying everything else AND working the same 10 hour day for a gross wage of $28.50! So, if I have the opportunity of hiring someone as a helper, for Ab min wage, I'll do so!

All busnesses are expensive to run. Not just the one I'm in.
So, do the math andy. Maybe then you will have a better understanding of what Bootlegga is trying to explain to you!

Easy to see why, in my particulat situation, I stay with the 'one man jobs', mainly custom hardwood and/or tile, or service work.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

andyt andyt:

See, it all works out. The fruit cakes can move south, the sane people north. Everybody wins.

You can get immediate health care here, same as the states. You just have to pay for it, same as the states. The waiting period is to qualify for resident status for insurance. If you're moving from province to province, you're still covered under your old plan for 6 months.

Try moving to the states, buying insurance on Tuesday and coming in Wednesday to tell them you have cancer. I'm thinking they'll call that a pre-existing condition and you won't get coverage - unlike in your nanny state.

Hmmm, I'm not too sure about the last one...
I remember I had to fill out some forms for Blue Cross to be insured the first 3 months after we landed (you are NOT covered as a foreigner) and pre-existing conditions were not covered.

I didn't want to pay $600 tho, so we weren't covered the first 3 months. I have seen the family doctor 3 times in my 3 years in Canada, twice for myself, and once for my daughter. The first time was within those first 3 months, and I had to pay $40 for the consultation.

Nope, you're not covered as a foreigner and need to buy insurance if you want medical coverage until you qualify as a resident for a particular province. I have no problem with that. But if the US, if you buy your insurance the day you arrive, and then run to the doctor with a problem the next day, you'll probably not be covered as a pre-existing condition. That is the most perverse part of the US system (if you really need coverage you can't get it) and a good thing that Obama is getting rid of it.

I have a problem with it. Brenda came as a landed-immigrant/PR after a lengthy and costly process only to find out she had no health coverage for her and her family who emigrated, legally.

But we are generous to the failed refugee claimants or cheats like the Tamils and all the thousands of other liars that land at YYZ everyday after destroying their fake passports. They and their families get free healthcare the day they arrive.

I have a problem with that.