also i thought europe wasnt really dense. i could have sworn i saw that europe has very few skyscrapers and mostly old frigging buildings.
you guys have waaaay to much time on your hands. lol
At a certain point you do have to take a step back and laugh at this ridiculous thread. I should be ashamed but it’s also pretty funny.
Direct it where you like, but it was still Franky. Rules are rules.
If we cut down on immigration, who’s gonna pay into CPP so I can retire??? 
You down wit cpp?
Yeah, you know me!!! 
^respek.
like most western countries, canadians have stopped having kids. The birthrate is a fraction of what it was 60 years ago (26.7/1,000 people in 1960, 10.9/1,000 people in 2013). As others above have said, Canada needs immigration to fund social programs (and the Canada Pension Plan, Canada’s national ponzi scheme).
And, as justin from canada said, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada”
If government subsidize daycare to a point that almost anyone can afford and also make it mandatory for condos and apartments to have one or two day care facilities then you can see more Canadians having babies.
we should send our homeless and prisoners over there. im sure they will do wonders for you.
subsidies/credits already exist and are some of the most liberal in the world. ~$6,000 after-tax per kid in addition to general household subsidies/credits that provides tens of thousands in income and free housing where available.
everyone can already write-off daycare against income and low income people get it basically for free. nationalized daycare or subsidizing daycare to the point of QC would mean another few hundred thousand unionized low-skill workers joining teachers’ unions and rent-seeking for double or more their worth to society.
also, the QC model sucks as nobody has access to daycare as everyone wants the $5/day daycare but there is only so much space. lower income people are hurt the most in this model. the only real option to provide access as well as “affordable” care (to the consumer) is nationalized daycare and then you get the massive rent-seeking and everyone just ends up paying for daycare workers’ rent-seeking. this would be a major net negative for everyone but daycare workers and you’d get a glut of daycare workers similar to the glut of teachers that exists in canada today. so more skill shortages and a more inefficient economy.
^ right, but its the lower income spouse that can claim the daycare expense on their tax return. The issue is that with the relatively high cost of daycare, in some cases, it may not make sense (financially) for one spouse to want to work if they are making say $40k per year, but daycare is costing them $1,600 per month for full-time care.
so you mean if the lower earner pretty much makes as much as a daycare person they should just be the daycare person themselves? what a concept! haha. if the lower earner has to stay home for a while, there still is a higher earner in this household or else they’d be receiving free childcare. no lower earning households are hurt now but to subsidize everyone to a wild extent at the expense of everyone’s well being is silly.
“here child, hang out with overpaid strangers all day while the government effectively pays them to care for you and me to go push paper or pour coffee.”
personally i think child care should be taken care of by the state as it is an investment. but which is a better investment?
-
subsidizing a child from 0 to 22 until he is a ready to work full time.
-
or importing a college educated 22 yo adult from a third world country and paying him a 20% discounted salary.
as justin bieber would say: it’s a no brainer.
maybe thats why people in developed countries dont reproduce. while developing countries multiply like bunnies and the most capable ones go to the developed countries.