Canada’s Insane Immigration U-Turn Explained - TLDR News Global (www.youtube.com)

submitted 5 days ago by brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the past year, Canada's immigration rate has experienced a dramatic reversal. We explain how it happened.

Also on Nebula: https://nebula.tv/videos/tldrnewsglobal-canadas-insane-immigration-uturn-explained

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Low income low skill people are still a net gain to society because they provide the secret ingredient that makes our economy function and grow: Demand. If their income is not enough to stimulate demand, that is because the minimum wage is too low.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca -4 points 4 days ago

Market economies are not built on demand. If all you have is demand then you have a failed economy because you will have runaway inflation the vast majority won't be able to afford the things they need

Which is precisely what's happening in Canada. The housing market has exploded because there's demand but not a sufficient supply. The strain on the medical systems is similar, demand increase faster than supply

Essentially you got it backwards. The magic in a market economy is the supply, and it is the nature of section economy that supply will appear to try and fill in demand. Loweskilled glow paid workers artificially ruin that dynamic and demand winds up outpacing supply with disastrous results

And their wages are too low because they're not worth anything. The system operates on the concept of being paid a dollar for the creation of a dollar's worth of value. To create higher value you need to have skills and abilities or assets which allow for that and that is exactly what is leaving Canada

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yes, market economies are built on demand. Neoclassical, supply side economics is a joke that centralizes wealth and destabilizes societies. It's a failure.

[+] Foxer@lemmy.ca -7 points 4 days ago

No they are not. And as the reality of the situation proves that I'm right and you are wrong. So there you go

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yes they are, and the last 40 years of ever increasing wealth inequality totally discredits your economic philosophy. So there you go. Milton Friedman was a dumbass, make your peace with that fact.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca -5 points 4 days ago

The last 40 years proves I'm right even more 😆😆😆

Sorry kid. Try reading a book instead of getting her education from Facebook. Demand exist in every economic model, capitalism addresses the supply sideit is that effort that makes things work. The ability to create products and services including ones that didn't even exist before which creates new demand is what drives us. Demand is not what drives us immigrants don't produce the supply necessary to meet the demand and that creates inflation and weakens the economy

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

The last 40 years proves I’m right even more 😆😆😆

If you think extreme wealth inequality, stagnating wages, decreasing purchasing power for the average person, and the rise of reactionary politics is success. If, on the other hand, you are a reasonable person, you would think that's a really pathetic failure. Kid.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca -4 points 4 days ago

I didn't say whether or not it was a success I said it proved me right. Wealth inequality is something that people that don't understand how money works talk about. Whether or not someone else is richer than you has nothing to do with how rich you are. It's not a measure that has any particular value. Reactionary politics has nothing to do with our financial system that's something else.

And most of that is a product of the last 12 years or so. And much of that problem was created by an imbalance between the growth of our population and our lack of ability to supply the needs of that population. As I have already pointed out with regards to housing, medicine, education, etc.

And that becomes a cycle or death spiral where are inability to supply leads to inflationary pressure and low wages which leads to our inability to supply etc

So bringing in low-wage people in any way shape or form make the economy stronger. At best it can mask weaknesses and cover them up for a short time until they kind of blow up in your face.

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Wealth inequality is something that people that don’t understand how money works talk about. Whether or not someone else is richer than you has nothing to do with how rich you are. It’s not a measure that has any particular value.

Absolutely insane, ridiculous thing to believe. Obviously increasing wealth inequality matters a lot because it allows for those holding onto large amounts of wealth to outcompete greater and greater swathes of the population for resources. Which they are clearly doing as the average person's purchasing power goes down. Pretending like it doesn't matter is the most obvious propaganda from those benefiting from the status quo that one wonders how anyone could fall for it.

And reactionary politics absolutely follows from our financial system because that same wealth inequality and lowered purchasing power makes people, unsurprisingly, mad. And a lot of those mad people start looking for answers, many in reactionary places. I'll point to the MAGA movement in the US as a pretty obvious ongoing example.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca -4 points 4 days ago

You have a fundamentally flawed view of what wealth is. Well isn't a thing. It's not like there's a limited amount of wealthonium in the world and whoever holds it gets it and nobody else does. That's not how it works.

Wealth is created through activity. Without the activity there is no wealth. Therefore the supply of wealth is endless, the problems usually come with limits or issues with the activity

So no, increasing wealth inequity is not the issue. The issue is that people are struggling harder and harder to be able to do enough activity that's worth enough value to be able to get what they want. That's true whether there are wealthy people or not

So the underlying issue is that the middle class and poor class aren't able to create enough wealth to meet their needs and that has nothing to do with the wealthy. You don't address that by worrying about what the wealthier doing, you address that by creating more opportunity for the middle class and the poor. And funny enough to do that you need the help of the wealthy which they are more than happy to give if they feel that it will be successful

Right now the tax burden and other burdens on the middle class prevent any disposable income or time that would allow for them to increase the value of their skills or begin to acquire assets and that is the problem. The wealthy are not excited about starting new businesses or educational opportunities that would fix this because they see the country as failing

And no reactionary politics does not follow from financial systems in the slightest.

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

You have a fundamentally flawed view of what wealth is. Well isn’t a thing. It’s not like there’s a limited amount of wealthonium in the world and whoever holds it gets it and nobody else does. That’s not how it works.

Wealth is created through activity. Without the activity there is no wealth. Therefore the supply of wealth is endless, the problems usually come with limits or issues with the activity

This is silly. Wealth is not zero sum, but it's also not infinite. The reality is, Canada's economy will grow (assuming no recession) 0-3% in any given year, maybe 4-5% if it's a real barn burner of a year. If the top wealth bracket's wealth grows at a rate larger than that, it's because they are taking resources from the rest of us who's wealth did not grow at that rate.

So yes, increasing wealth inequality is the issue. Neoclassical economics might as well be astrology for all dumb assumptions it makes.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 days ago

That's basic economics. Had you gone to a real school to study this stuff you might have realized it. Wealth is infinite, our capacity to generate it is limited. Your comment is no different than if somebody were to say there is a finite amount of kinetic energy in the universe. That's just not how it works

I know the wealthy aren't taking any resources from the rest of us. Wealthier in a position where they can create wealth at a higher and more effective rate. But interestingly enough that wealth creation actually benefits us and we make more than we would have as a result of it, not less

I'm afraid if you're poor it's your own damn fault you can't blame it on anyone else. You have every bit as much of potential to increase your wealth and become extremely wealthy as anyone else and if that was your primary focus in life you could certainly do that. While it takes a lot of work it's not terribly hard.

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Wealth is infinite, our capacity to generate it is limited.

Then talking about infinite wealth in the context of the actual world we live in is fucking stupid!

Almost as stupid as comparing the study of economics, a soft science, to physics.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca -4 points 4 days ago

No it's not, god it's like talking to A four-year-old.

The wealth is infinite. There can't be a shortage of it. Our capacity can be limited. Therefore when we're talking about the real world that we live in it is dumb to talk about wealth as if there's a shortage and it makes sense to discuss capacity to create wealth.

Can you just not smart enough to have this conversation I'm sorry. I'm trying my best here but you keep making statements that are absolutely asinine because you have fallen in love with this idea that somehow there's this limited supply of wealth out there and someone's hoarding it and that's why you don't have any. That's just not how it works

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

There can’t be a shortage of it. Our capacity can be limited.

Yes, we are finite beings in a finite world. The idea of infinite wealth in that context is absurd. I understand what you are saying, I just think it is stupid.

You seem to think your field of study is based on study of the natural world rather than founded on assumptions. As though what you are saying is natural law. It isn't.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago

The beings are finite but the wealth is not. I don't know how to explain this more simply. If you fall into the ocean there's only so much water you can drink so your ability is finite but from a practical point of view the water is infant.

This is extremely simple, the point is the limit is the person not the wealth

And no I'm just trying to find a way to explain it to you that will make it easier for you to get your head around. Honestly I've never had this kind of trouble explaining this concept to someone. My mother gets this.

Bottom line is that your lack of wealth is not because somebody else is hoarding wealth.