Sign up  |  Log in

Reduce the amount of immigration in Canada

population growth can continue for a very long time for a place like canada. not the world, but canada yes. we can probably grow our population by 4x before running into any sort of density issues but by that time places like NYC and LA will have solved those density problems.

maybe the basis for my rationale is something that only those who live here, or in middle america, understand immediately. this place is crazy inefficient from a transportation point of view. we only really have like 3-5 true cities and rest are basically towns by global standards. i live in a city/town that probably needs to grow 3x before public transport is even close to viable and i’m in the 10th largest “city” in the country. my property taxes are 2.5x higher than toronto and its surrounding cities due to this inefficiency.

the cost of time and energy to get people and things from place to place is extreme. this is the case for the majority of the canadian population.

add in better sustainability of social institutions and i’m all for highly skilled immigration.

So this is slightly all a bit offbase.  It doesn’t really matter what the physical constraint is because based on the current trend global population growth should peak in 2040, Europe and Japan have peaked, China owing to 1 child should peak around 2030 and the US is probably on a similar timeline clouded by immigration.  It’s simply becoming the case that in developed economies people are having fewer babies.  So this could all be a somewhat tangential debate about physical constraints.

The reality is most likely that we are going  to be in a declining population soon globally.  I’m not saying that Canada can’t or shouldn’t grow or that immigration is bad, I was simply pointing out that pursuing GDP growth for the sake of GDP growth doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense.  I’m not sure that using density metrics makes a good argument because A) the correlation simply isn’t there that this implies a better economy per capita and B) boundary lines are somewhat arbitrary.  Canada has a bunch of northern land that will basically always be undesirable for living and unoccupied so including those regions in infrastructure arguments is kind of missing the point, these sorts of things need to be evaluated more by populated region if at all to have meaning.

I don’t think there’s a realistic immigration or fertility policy that sees Canada go from like 4ppl per km^2 to 30 without causing mass chaos with major externalities over any reasonable timeframe.  If anything you could much more effectively address this principal by promoting urbanization.  I’m not really taking a strong stance, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just talking generally.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

So here’s countries with more than 100,000 km landmass (eliminates city states) with rank by density in descending and hte GDP per capita rank next to them:

Density Rank, Per Capita GDP Rank, Country

1, 24, India

2, 9, China

3, 19, Indonesia

4, 28, Ethiopia

5, 22, Egypt

6, 8, Mexico

7, 16, Iran

8, 15, South Africa

9, 14, Colombia

10, 23, DR Congo

11, 1, United States

12, 21, Angola

13, 12, Peru

14, 11, Brazil

15, 29, Sudan

16, 30, Niger

17, 17, Algeria

18, 6, Argentina

19, 5, Saudi Arabia

20, 26, Mali

21, 27, Chad

22, 20, Bolivia

23, 7, Russia

24, 10, Kazakhstan

25, 25, Mauritania

26, 13, Libya

27, 4, Canada

28, 2, Australia

29, 18, Mongolia

30, 3, Greenland

Right, so US is number 11? LMAO. Like, what even is this list? Why aren’t Nigeria, Turkey and my homeboy Chad on this list. Analysis fail! 

When I was young I was called a rugged individualist. When I was in my fifties I was considered eccentric. Here I am doing and saying the same things I did then and I'm labeled senile.

frankybarnes wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

So here’s countries with more than 100,000 km landmass (eliminates city states) with rank by density in descending and hte GDP per capita rank next to them:

<long list>

Right, so US is number 11? LMAO. Like, what even is this list? Why aren’t Nigeria, Turkey and my homeboy Chad on this list. Analysis fail! 

It’s 1M km^2 is the filter, the first one missed a zero.  The longer list is above 10,000 km^2.  Also Chad is on the list at 21.  Reading fail!

Anyhow, the lack of correlation between density and per capita GDP remains the same.  At any group above 10,000 km^2 which eliminates city states.  So sad, Franky has nothing to add!

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Nah, was talking about AF owner Chad, obviously laugh

LMAO, nice filter…I guess Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey, Ukraine and France are “city states.” 

When I was young I was called a rugged individualist. When I was in my fifties I was considered eccentric. Here I am doing and saying the same things I did then and I'm labeled senile.

Black Swan wrote:

I don’t think there’s a realistic immigration or fertility policy that sees Canada go from like 4ppl per km^2 to 30 without causing mass chaos with major externalities over any reasonable timeframe.  If anything you could much more effectively address this principal by promoting urbanization.  I’m not really taking a strong stance, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just talking generally.

110 years at our current population growth rate of ~1.5%, of which 1% comes from immigration currently, would grow canada’s population from 35 million to 175 million. sounds crazy but the US grew similarly from 1860 to 1960 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented. canada already is one of the top destinations for immigrants from china and india. is there a reason why toronto, vancouver or montreal can’t grow to be the same size as NYC or LA? its a matter of public will really. the only thing stopping growth is a choice to stop growth. though i will admit that the quality of immigrants would decline over time and this would naturally affect the public’s perception of immigration.

Hmmm, interesting Franky, struggling with your density again I think you’re getting confused between the two lists I posted.

There are two versions.  I filtered it once to 1M km^2 and once to 10km^2.  Both found no correlation, you’re welcome to look at the public datasets like Kiplinger did and ultimately reach the same conclusion.

The list you’re referring to is the >1M km^2 which takes a more summary list and reaches the same correlation.  THAT list does not include those countries, which were never called city states.

I said >10,000 km^2 filters city states, that list, referenced above but at 160+ names was too long to post has no correlation and that list DOES include France, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.  In this full list, there is still no correlation and the top 10 were posted earlier, extending to the Top 20 as even you can see, 12 of the Top 20 have GDP per capita below $10k which is very sad!

Country Density GDP per capita

Bangladesh 1105  1,745

Taiwan 657 24,971

Lebanon 656  9,257

South Korea 511 31,346

Rwanda 479 791

India 416 2,036

Burundi 414 307

Israel 410 41,644

Netherlands 409 53,106

Haiti 406 857

Belgium 378 46,724

Japan 336 39,306

Sri Lanka 325 4,068

Philippines 316 3,104

El Salvador 307 3,924

Vietnam 291 2,551

United Kingdom 278 62,606

Jamaica 268 5,392

Pakistan 246 1,555

Qatar 244 70,780

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

I don’t think there’s a realistic immigration or fertility policy that sees Canada go from like 4ppl per km^2 to 30 without causing mass chaos with major externalities over any reasonable timeframe.  If anything you could much more effectively address this principal by promoting urbanization.  I’m not really taking a strong stance, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just talking generally.

110 years at our current population growth rate of ~1.5%, of which 1% comes from immigration currently, would grow canada’s population from 35 million to 175 million. sounds crazy but the US grew similarly from 1860 to 1960 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented. canada already is one of the top destinations for immigrants from china and india. is there a reason why toronto, vancouver or montreal can’t grow to be the same size as NYC or LA? its a matter of public will really. the only thing stopping growth is a choice to stop growth. though i will admit that the quality of immigrants would decline over time and this would naturally affect the public’s perception of immigration.

I guess I should have specified “reasonable amount of time” lol.

But here’s where you completely miss the point by ignoring the fact that literally everything you just described can happen pretty easily through urbanization policies vs mass immigration which was mentioned in that exact quote.  You don’t give a reason why adopting some uniform distribution is better or why populating to compensate for Nunavut makes any sense whatsoever.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

I don’t think there’s a realistic immigration or fertility policy that sees Canada go from like 4ppl per km^2 to 30 without causing mass chaos with major externalities over any reasonable timeframe.  If anything you could much more effectively address this principal by promoting urbanization.  I’m not really taking a strong stance, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just talking generally.

110 years at our current population growth rate of ~1.5%, of which 1% comes from immigration currently, would grow canada’s population from 35 million to 175 million. sounds crazy but the US grew similarly from 1860 to 1960 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented. canada already is one of the top destinations for immigrants from china and india. is there a reason why toronto, vancouver or montreal can’t grow to be the same size as NYC or LA? its a matter of public will really. the only thing stopping growth is a choice to stop growth. though i will admit that the quality of immigrants would decline over time and this would naturally affect the public’s perception of immigration.

I guess I should have specified “reasonable amount of time” lol.

But here’s where you completely miss the point by ignoring the fact that literally everything you just described can happen pretty easily through urbanization policies vs mass immigration which was mentioned in that exact quote.  You don’t give a reason why adopting some uniform distribution is better or why populating to compensate for Nunavut makes any sense whatsoever.

what urbanization policies? canada, the us, the uk, france, germany and probably almost every other western country has near identical rural/urban mixes of about 20% rural and 80% urban. seems like your angle may simply be the result of a canadian stereotype that we’re all living in igloos.

the key difference between canada and ths us is that Canadian cities are smaller and geographically separated. the only way to solve the small cities problem when the rural/urban mix is at or near equilibrium is to promote immigration.

That’s not a good graph. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. The city in US will be much better than a city in a ****hole country. You will prolly get a much better correlation between cities within a country. Lower density poorer people. 

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Nerdyblop wrote:

That’s not a good graph. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. The city in US will be much better than a city in a ****hole country. You will prolly get a much better correlation between cities within a country. Lower density poorer people. 

No crap, you just described density being uncorrelated to national gdp per capital which was the point, making it a perfect graph.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

I don’t think there’s a realistic immigration or fertility policy that sees Canada go from like 4ppl per km^2 to 30 without causing mass chaos with major externalities over any reasonable timeframe.  If anything you could much more effectively address this principal by promoting urbanization.  I’m not really taking a strong stance, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just talking generally.

110 years at our current population growth rate of ~1.5%, of which 1% comes from immigration currently, would grow canada’s population from 35 million to 175 million. sounds crazy but the US grew similarly from 1860 to 1960 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented. canada already is one of the top destinations for immigrants from china and india. is there a reason why toronto, vancouver or montreal can’t grow to be the same size as NYC or LA? its a matter of public will really. the only thing stopping growth is a choice to stop growth. though i will admit that the quality of immigrants would decline over time and this would naturally affect the public’s perception of immigration.

I guess I should have specified “reasonable amount of time” lol.

But here’s where you completely miss the point by ignoring the fact that literally everything you just described can happen pretty easily through urbanization policies vs mass immigration which was mentioned in that exact quote.  You don’t give a reason why adopting some uniform distribution is better or why populating to compensate for Nunavut makes any sense whatsoever.

what urbanization policies? canada, the us, the uk, france, germany and probably almost every other western country has near identical rural/urban mixes of about 20% rural and 80% urban. seems like your angle may simply be the result of a canadian stereotype that we’re all living in igloos.

the key difference between canada and ths us is that Canadian cities are smaller and geographically separated. the only way to solve the small cities problem when the rural/urban mix is at or near equilibrium is to promote immigration.

MLA, cmon man, you’re somewhat better than this.  I don’t know if its because you’re dug in for some fictitious fight on Canada or willfully ignoring what I’m saying but you’re repeatedly ignoring what I’m actually saying in favor of what you want to argue.

Yes, you are right, the urban rural mixes are the same, what is not factually are the large northern regions that are essentially dead land that warp the Canadian pp/km^2 figures.  Earlier you made the misguided point that you could or should get to similar (like 30 pp/km^2) figures through immigration.  My point is this makes no sense since even under that situation you’re still not populating the northern regions which make those comparisons meaningless, it really needs to be a habitable density to habitable density comparison.  Does this make sense so far?

In that light you can arrive at similar effective densities in Canada if you adjust out the northern regions despite the overall national average being lower (for the reasons discussed).  So you really need to step back from these national stat type things because its a unique landmass.

So then you started talking about LA, etc.  My point is, you can get there much more efficiently by just promoting urbanization even if it means Canada goes to a higher skew vs the other countries.  I don’t know why you would even bring them in as a benchmark because its a non-sequitur.  Again, for the literal millionth time, I’m not saying immigration is bad, but trying to push up the average (and ignoring the fact that Canada has a large suboptimal mass) instead of using a more targeted approach of urbanization doesn’t really make sense and uses sort of blunt policy were more targeted could be used with the population you have.  A similar case is Russia at 75% urban given Siberia, and Australia.  Australia for instance has also very successfully moved to a 70% rural mix so you have large world class cities and large unused outback, their aggregate stats are warped, but filling the outback doesn’t really improve things for them, infrastructure is great and they just adjusted their optimum mix.  In this regard, comparing similar geographies, Canada is significant trailing some of its best compares.

It’s worth looking at that chart above and seeing how far AU and CA have outperformed and wondering if pushing up aggregate density really accomplishes anything.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Kiplinger wrote:

On another note, peeps should be looking at Bangaladesh. The Bengalis are possibly the most resilient people ever and that nation is outperforming everyone in its category plus they are the recipient of the most fresh water on earth. 

Worst models of climate change put that entire country underwater but even if 50 percent goes underwater and assuming 70 percent built up area they’ll have the density of Singapore at projected peak population of 250 million. Its definitely workable and they have historically been one of the richest regions in the world prior to colonialism.

I am curious as to how Singapore is thriving and held up as a model of sustainable development but Hong Kong which has a lower density per square metre is unable to provide adequate housing 

If you visit HK and Singapore you will know instantly the housing dilemma in HK vs SG.  Hong Kong is mad hilly, so building on it is both an engineering marvel and nightmare.  Also, SG has excellent urban planning with leafy parks all about and public use water fronts.  In HK, the waterfront is often privatized, and thus we reserve +60% of the land for country parks.  Finally, HK land policy is a sad joke completely corrupted by property tycoons, but you can read the paper about the current protests to learn more.

Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool. I will call you later.

BS, that’s fine but you are missing something. if canada is at a similar urban/rural mix as the US et al, but it does have populations that live in middle of nowhere (places you wish to write off completely for the sake of this argument), then canada’s urban/rural mix is ALREADY higher than the US et al. promoting urbanization for the 7 million who live outside of urban centres doesn’t make sense. so you want whitehorse, yellowknife, fort mac, timmins, thompson and prince albert (200k population, just a few that are considered rural) to shut down their viable and enduring resource economies and move their populations to toronto? it’s not like rural people in canada are twiddling their thumbs and living in poverty. they are working and providing products to the global economy. rural areas exist for a reason. canada is basically as urbanized as it can be. 

also, by your logic, if you wish to writeoff “northern canada”, then this writeoff should only occur north of your own country’s most northernly urban area - Anchorage. if we use anchorage as the cutoff line, there is plenty of land to fill and your logic fails. there is no valid reason why population centres cannot be established up to the arctic tree line which is well above anchorage.

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

BS, that’s fine but you are missing something. if canada is at a similar urban/rural mix as the US et al, but it does have populations that live in middle of nowhere (places you wish to write off completely for the sake of this argument), then canada’s urban/rural mix is ALREADY higher than the US et al. promoting urbanization for the 7 million who live outside of urban centres doesn’t make sense. so you want whitehorse, yellowknife, fort mac, timmins, thompson and prince albert (200k population, just a few that are considered rural) to shut down their viable and enduring resource economies and move their populations to toronto? it’s not like rural people in canada are twiddling their thumbs and living in poverty. they are working and providing products to the global economy. rural areas exist for a reason. canada is basically as urbanized as it can be. 

also, by your logic, if you wish to writeoff “northern canada”, then this writeoff should only occur north of your own country’s most northernly urban area - Anchorage. if we use anchorage as the cutoff line, there is plenty of land to fill and your logic fails. there is no valid reason why population centres cannot be established up to the arctic tree line which is well above anchorage.

It’s suboptimal, although the higher rate already (which I didn’t miss in fact) is why they do perform as well as they do.  You’re acting like being higher than the US means its good, there’s zero reason why the US would be a benchmark for Canada.

Russia and Australia both have resource industries that are far superior to those of Canada and far more productive, so arguing that it’s all good and you couldn’t maintain those industries with less people out there is pointless.  Oil sands are a dying method anyways.  When you’re at urban/rural mix of about 25% urban in line with Europe and the US which share no real geographic commonality is bordering willful ignorance.  The reality is your nearest and most successful geographic and economic peers are all at ~75% urban mix, it’s not even close.

You then (and I’m blown away by your willful ignorance to nuance here) are drawing some weird comparison again in name only with Anchorage.  Anchorage serves as a lone strategic outpost and is primarily a gateway to fishing and resources industries.  Using its latitude to argue for inhabiting suboptimal norther lands wholesale is just arguing through ridiculous oversimplification.  It’s sadly reminiscent of your use of Western Europe as a compare for rural / urban mix for Canada earlier. 

Urbanization isn’t just about moving from from providence to providence it’s about  achieving density even within smaller regions.  Similarly China has undergone a significant shift ot >50% urban.  You’re using a bogus and outdated comparison with Europe and the US, but the reality is 25% or whatever urbanization for Canada is wildly suboptimal for any modern nation and even moreso when you compare it to any other nation with similar geography, it’s not even close enough to make a credible defense.

Matt, this stuff isn’t hard, but clearly you have some preformed ideas that you didn’t really think through and don’t have an interest in weighing the realities and nuances of Canada’s landmass in forming.  It seems this is political for you and you’re not willing to argue it dispassionately and it reminds me of how you argued for the Amazon headquarters definitely going to Toronto to the death with everyone and were colossally wrong or how you lectured me on gold and refused to even acknowledge that you were completely wrong even after the fact.  There’s a point where you’re just going to ignore reality and argue to argue and I think we’ve found it.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Franky (not that Frankie) finally successfully trolled someone. Only took a couple years, but you did it buddy! Of course you hooked the easiest person to troll on AF, so now it’s time to step up your game. Try to get one of the Canadians riled up. They’re so damn polite that’s a real challenge for you.

My parents immigrated to Canada years ago.  Sorry, I respectfully disagree with the thread title, eh.

“Mmmmmm, something…” - H. Simpson

Sweep the Leg wrote:

Of course you hooked the easiest person to troll on AF, so now it’s time to step up your game.

Lol, fair.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

bs, you wrote your last comment as if you believe only 25% of canada is urban. i assume this is a mistake. but some of your comments are in line with this assumption. please clarify.

as per this world bank website, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS,  canada is 81% urban and australia is 86% urban. you’re talking about a 5% shift from rural to urban, or less than 2 million canadians. this represents less than six years of our current immigration rate. i’m not sure how your point is relevant over any timeframe considering “promoting urbanization” is a slow process outside of authoritarian regimes.

also, disregarding the geographic similarities between canada and the us is unlike you. are you actually going to tell me that somehow canada and australia are more similar than canada and the us? canada and the us share basically all the same rivers and many of the same lakes and have similar resource deposits and topography. there is a reason why australia’s rural/resource sector is more efficient. it is because those resources are more geographically concentrated (i.e. pilbara, queensland) while canada’s are much more sparse (Sudbury, James Bay, Labrador City, etc. are puny relative to Australian operations). the US similarly has more inefficient mining operating relative to australia. there is some concentration in north american energy deposits but in canada as you said these deposits are likely not viable forever and in the us the deposits are only now starting to gain scale even close to comparable to pilbara operations.

finally, canada’s rural areas have strategic military and research value that australia’s do not. hell, the us helps pay for some of the outposts that exist in canada’s north for military and research purposes.

Yeah, I wrote that backwards when i was writing it.  I’m not saying their isn’t some similarity between the US and Canada but hte problem is it’s mostly the similarity between northern US and southern Canada, as you get above the say, halfway mark its just not even remotely similar.  Moreover, the norther parts its similar to are sparsely populated outside cities.  Yes, Australia has better resources, but that sort of speaks to the point of why Canada should just push for more urbanization, there’s even less incentive to be producing resources on the margin.  I get that you can’t demand urbanization, but you can promote it through policies.

Not sure about the strategic and research value being any greater than Australia or anywhere else, seems tenuous.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

OMG! I wasn’t really serious when I created this thread. It was late night after a few drinks. Anyways here we go: 

MLA is unquestionably right on lack of population growth and its correlation with the economy.  Back in the day the Canadian government only allowed white Europeans to emigrate but then I believe 50 years ago they opened the gates for poor folks in Asia that helped the country bring 1) cheaper labor and 2) folks who like to make babies.  This change was a win-win for a majority of immigrants as in old days jobs were available and the competition was less so you could move up on the ladder pretty easily and buy a house, have a family. But now things have changed drastically. It is impossible for immigrants to afford a house in big cities and raise kids so the sole purpose of increasing population base has already been defeated by the cost of living.  If most of the immigrants are landing in two or three major cities where two people with a household income of $150k can’t afford to buy a decent condo or house then how would they afford to raise kids? now, forget about folks who are driving cabs or working in low paying jobs. When you say that folks argue why immigrants don’t move to small cities and stay there. Sadly, there are no decent jobs in those areas unless you want to work in some admin/support job or some blue-collar job.  There is also a lack of social integration in those areas which adds to the existing problem.

Canada needs to revamp its immigration policies and find how to actually meet the needs of the labor market. With regards to increasing population government can easily implement many solutions 1) offer more tax credits for having up to 3-4 kids 2) offer tax credits for immigrants who stay and work in rural areas 2) offer daycare system paid by taxpayers 4) make it easier and cheaper for people to have kids 5) improve public transportation 5) force people out of cities and provide benefits if they choose to live in small cities. 

People are not having kids because the cost of living is rising in Toronto/GTA but wages are not keeping up. I strongly believe that in Canada most white-collar folks under 40 are severely underemployed.  If white couple earning a $100k is encountering difficulties raising two kids because of insane costs associated with it then how is it even possible to expect that from immigrants who 1) mostly broke 2) lack communication skills to get better jobs 3) have no support from families to raise kids? 

MLA has raised many good points but I believe immigration from South East Asia is not the solution to these issues. I’m open to reading interesting counterargument. 

Can someone explain what this socially autistic chutiya is trying to say? I can’t ****ing understand one word.

Out of the top 5 sources of expats to Canada only one is South East Asian. The others are South Asian, East Asian, West Asian and North American (USA).

Second, none of the assumptions seem accurate at all and seem more in line with a spastic who has no social connections. Here is a study dealing with the question :

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-606-x/71-606-x2018001-eng.htm

Some highlights :

Quote:
 

Most of the growth in immigrant employment was in professional, scientific and technical services; finance, insurance, real estate and leasing services; manufacturing as well as health care and social assistance.

 

Quote:
 

Core-aged immigrants born in the Philippines continued to have the highest employment rate of all immigrant groups, even higher than the Canadian-born, followed by immigrants born in Europe.

 

Quote:
The employment-rate gap between immigrants and the Canadian-born narrowed for three consecutive years, after increasing in 2014. The gap in 2017 was the lowest since 2006 (start of the series). At the same time, the unemployment-rate gap was stable in 2017, but narrower than it was in 2014.
 

Even assuming that 100 percent of the 300k odd expats who go to Canada are low skilled and earn say 37k a year CAD they are netting roughly 2500 a month after tax. Over a timeline of 35 years they should easily be able to afford a house / condo worth 300k and from what I can see some suburb called Scarborough 20 km from Toronto has such offerings so not sure it is as “unaffordable” as this clown claims. As long as their are policies ensuring schools in those areas have good outcomes then for Canada it is a win win increasing their human capital over time as well. 

If white people can’t live on a 100 k maybe they should stop pissing away their savings “living their best life” and drinking 5 dollar Chai-Tea (wtf even does this mean, Chai means tea) and learn how to make some sacrifices. 

I can understand places like Japan, Korea, China, India, Iran, Russia refusing to open borders because these places are civilizational states but immigrant nations like USA, Canada, Australia discussing closing the borders (that too by a third rate immigrant) after murdering the inheritors of the land and bleeding the world of talent is making me piss my pants.

StL Edit: your post was reported for attempted doxxing. Honestly, for as much as I’m anti-doxxing, I don’t think this was. But, whatever. You and the other guy have history. Please kiss, reach around, and get over it. 

Tell me Pasha, what does this word 'modern' even mean?

actually for mortagages, at least in us, the standard rule is like 4x ur income. you may be able to stretch it to 5 or 6. but 10x is unheard of. nto today honey! lol i love the funny adjectives though.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Nerdyblop wrote:

actually for mortagages, at least in us, the standard rule is like 4x ur income. you may be able to stretch it to 5 or 6. but 10x is unheard of. nto today honey! lol i love the funny adjectives though.

I used 4x. The assumption was double income. 

If you’re single there is no need to buy property. Rent 4 lyf!!

Thanks brah! 

Tell me Pasha, what does this word 'modern' even mean?

I do like Kiplinger, generally well reasoned, A+ delivery even when it’s at me.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Kiplinger wrote:

Can someone explain what this socially autistic chutiya is trying to say? I can’t ****ing understand one word.

Out of the top 5 sources of expats to Canada only one is South East Asian. The others are South Asian, East Asian, West Asian and North American (USA).

Second, none of the assumptions seem accurate at all and seem more in line with a spastic who has no social connections. Here is a study dealing with the question :

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-606-x/71-606-x2018001-eng.htm

Some highlights :

Quote:
 

Most of the growth in immigrant employment was in professional, scientific and technical services; finance, insurance, real estate and leasing services; manufacturing as well as health care and social assistance.

 

Quote:
 

Core-aged immigrants born in the Philippines continued to have the highest employment rate of all immigrant groups, even higher than the Canadian-born, followed by immigrants born in Europe.

 

Quote:
The employment-rate gap between immigrants and the Canadian-born narrowed for three consecutive years, after increasing in 2014. The gap in 2017 was the lowest since 2006 (start of the series). At the same time, the unemployment-rate gap was stable in 2017, but narrower than it was in 2014.
 

Even assuming that 100 percent of the 300k odd expats who go to Canada are low skilled and earn say 37k a year CAD they are netting roughly 2500 a month after tax. Over a timeline of 35 years they should easily be able to afford a house / condo worth 300k and from what I can see some suburb called Scarborough 20 km from Toronto has such offerings so not sure it is as “unaffordable” as this clown claims. As long as their are policies ensuring schools in those areas have good outcomes then for Canada it is a win win increasing their human capital over time as well. 

If white people can’t live on a 100 k maybe they should stop pissing away their savings “living their best life” and drinking 5 dollar Chai-Tea (wtf even does this mean, Chai means tea) and learn how to make some sacrifices. 

I can understand places like Japan, Korea, China, India, Iran, Russia refusing to open borders because these places are civilizational states but immigrant nations like USA, Canada, Australia discussing closing the borders (that too by a third rate immigrant) after murdering the inheritors of the land and bleeding the world of talent is making me piss my pants.

lol riled up. 

bs, just to reiterate, encouraging that canada up its urban/rural mix upward by 5% (i.e. 2 million people) is a flash in the pan for a country that is increasing it population by over 1% per year (mostly via immigration). and again, places like the ones i mentioned are viable communities. are you also calling for the abolishment of valid communities like gloucester, mass or key west, fla? you have to know that what you’re saying is silly. sure maybe 0.5% or 1% of canada’s population is inefficiently allocated but calling for self-sustaining towns that generate meaningful economic value to be shut down is really just silly. mere economics promotes urbanization. if your small community sucks, move to a bigger city where opportunity is greater. artificially stimulating migration is a weird concept coming from someone who i thought was somewhat libertarian in his beliefs.

Black Swan wrote:

Not sure about the strategic and research value being any greater than Australia or anywhere else, seems tenuous.

rural australia literally has no strategic value whereas rural canada may literally have the most strategic value…

trust me, the us is going to commit inordinate resources to canada’s north in order to maintain near exclusive economic and strategic rights over the north west passage and surrounding areas.

it is actually difficult to find an article on the north west passage that doesn’t include the words “strategic value”.

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/canada/pompeos-comment-about-canadas-illegitimate-claim-to-arctic-waters-a-sign-of-norths-rising-strategic-importance-309108/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/china-northwest-passage-trade-route-shipping-guide

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

bs, just to reiterate, encouraging that canada up its urban/rural mix upward by 5% (i.e. 2 million people) is a flash in the pan for a country that is increasing it population by over 1% per year (mostly via immigration). and again, places like the ones i mentioned are viable communities. are you also calling for the abolishment of valid communities like gloucester, mass or key west, fla? you have to know that what you’re saying is silly. sure maybe 0.5% or 1% of canada’s population is inefficiently allocated but calling for self-sustaining towns that generate meaningful economic value to be shut down is really just silly. mere economics promotes urbanization. if your small community sucks, move to a bigger city where opportunity is greater. artificially stimulating migration is a weird concept coming from someone who i thought was somewhat libertarian in his beliefs.

Well its pretty simplistic to think migratory incentives are calling for “abolishment” of small towns or to take such a binary POV of things, albeit not surprising.  It can be as simple as tax incentives/disincentives.  Again, for the millionth time, I don’t think it’s a direct compare to the US, which has different economy and different geography.  Also 5% of a countries population is not a flash in the pan.  I am saying though that moves towards urbanization for any country are better more precise policy towards those objectives.  Again, it was never binary as you keep trying to reduce it to, I stated repeatedly this was not an anti-immigration position, so any argument to the contrary is wholesale stupid.  

So to recap, you made a pretty weak original statement about growth, then floundered before settling on infrastructure, drew some sloppy comparisons to Western Europe, ignoring AU and Russia, and now are completely discounting the obvious benefits of increased urbanization under some new over simplification.  Nice.

AU provides access to CN.  What you described however justifies a military outpost, not populating garbage land.  These points are as weak as the sure thing where Amazon was going to Toronto only for them to pick three cities not in Canada.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017