Unfortunately the current situation is not sustainable either. As the video pointed out, right now there are 4 taxpayers:1 retiree, but unless we start taking in more new immigrants that will only...
Unfortunately the current situation is not sustainable either. As the video pointed out, right now there are 4 taxpayers:1 retiree, but unless we start taking in more new immigrants that will only be 2 taxpayers:1 retiree by 2040, which would likely not be enough to provide adequate funding for our healthcare system and social safety net. Our current birthrate is well below the fertility replacement rate too, which isn't helping matters either.
I don't disagree with you that a post-scarcity economy would be ideal... I am a Trekkie and so would love to live in a similar future! However, the pragmatist in me says we shouldn't assume that...
I don't disagree with you that a post-scarcity economy would be ideal... I am a Trekkie and so would love to live in a similar future! However, the pragmatist in me says we shouldn't assume that outcome is inevitable or achievable by 2100, and so the uptick in immigration is the safer bet for now.
And it's not like we'll suddenly have 3x the farmland or fresh water to support this increase.
Note: I haven't watched the video yet. For those who don't know much about Canada (like me), it has a population of about 36 million. They have 250,000 immigrants per year. If Canada wants to have...
Note: I haven't watched the video yet.
For those who don't know much about Canada (like me), it has a population of about 36 million. They have 250,000 immigrants per year.
If Canada wants to have a population od 100 million by 2100, the number of immigrants plus birth rate / mortality rate should account for more than 800,000 per year, starting next year. That seems like an enormous amount. Is that even doable?
If I remember correctly a day later, the video cites 450,000 immigrants per year as the number that would make 100 million by 2100 possible (compared to about 300,000 immigrants per year now). The...
Exemplary
If I remember correctly a day later, the video cites 450,000 immigrants per year as the number that would make 100 million by 2100 possible (compared to about 300,000 immigrants per year now). The analysis in the video is skeptical of this idea: the commentator thinks it would be difficult to reach the 450,000 per year for various reasons (one reason he says is the de facto requirement to keep the the ratio of Quebec's population to the rest of Canada the same; just to note, this isn't something I've heard before and I can't find any info on it, and the only similar idea I've come across before is the requirement for minimum representation for certain provinces in parliament regardless of population). Much more optimistic is the 2017 book Maximum Canada: Toward a Country of 100 Million which advocates for the idea. As it says:
(collapsed for length)
A maximum Canada would not entail a Laurier-era large-scale immigration drive or a noticeably increased flow of newcomers at a pace likely to disrupt the social balance. It would mean a slow increase in immigration levels to somewhat more than the approximately 300,000 people we currently accept every year. Since the early 1990s, Canada’s immigration rate has stayed relatively steady at around 0.7 to 0.8 percent (that is, 7 or 8 new immigrants each year for every 1,000 existing Canadians). For a substantial population increase, this rate would need to increase by a couple of tenths of a percentage point, to perhaps 1.2 per cent, for a number of years. It would not entail a year-to-year increase in immigration numbers beyond the modest changes Canadians are used to. For example, Canada’s immigration intake increased several times during the Mulroney years—notably by 50,000 between 1986 and 1987 (from 99,000 back to the 1976 level of 152,000)—and then fell by 40,000 in the Chrétien years, from 216,000 to 174,000 in 1997, and then jumped again by 40,000 in 2000, to 230,000. In 2016, it saw another increase of 40,000, from 260,000 to a target of 300,000.
Most scenarios for population growth call for similar gradual changes in immigration intake. One proposal, by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, outlines a plan that would see a gradual rise in immigration numbers, with annual increases between 15,000 and 45,000 immigrants each year (to avoid a sudden strain on our education, transportation and health systems) until 2021. At that point Canada would be taking in 75,000 additional primary immigrants (those admitted through the points system) and an equal number of family members (those who come as relatives of the “points” immigrants), for a total annual immigration intake of 450,000 per year and an annual population growth of 1.2 percent—an immigration level considerably lower than, for example, Switzerland’s (1.9 per cent) and similar to the rates in New Zealand, Ireland and Norway. The plan would focus exclusively on high-skill and postsecondary student immigration to minimize cost and maximize economic benefit (as well as a predicted sharp decrease in refugee numbers, which tend to spike only during crises every few decades). This would not produce a very noticeable increase in the number of newcomers in Canadian streets and schools; it is less than a third of the proportion of immigration Canada experienced every year in the 1910s. The plan would allow institutions and infrastructure to expand in an organic and managed way, so that cities could plan for growth and phase in transportation, housing and schools as the newcomers’ economic participation provided the new tax revenues to pay for them.
The Advisory Council’s immigration numbers are on the high side: they assume no change in birth rates. If investments in family policy and childcare deliver a fertility-rate increase, then the immigration numbers could be considerably lower. The effect will be the same either way: more Canadians, and a considerably younger population. This, as Chapter 6 showed, would make the mid-century demographic crunch much more manageable. The price of managing an aging generation would not eat up a third of national and provincial budgets, thereby leaving resources for climate policy, infrastructure and younger generations.
I am all for this, but unfortunately I don't think that either the Federal or Provincial governments will be able to cough up the necessary infrastructure to make this feasible.
I am all for this, but unfortunately I don't think that either the Federal or Provincial governments will be able to cough up the necessary infrastructure to make this feasible.
I might give this desert and rest at some point and move to Canada. My US state is very blue, but shitlord companies like nestle get to suck up resources from our natural springs if they please....
I might give this desert and rest at some point and move to Canada. My US state is very blue, but shitlord companies like nestle get to suck up resources from our natural springs if they please. Some people are only alive because it's illegal to ____.
Unfortunately the current situation is not sustainable either. As the video pointed out, right now there are 4 taxpayers:1 retiree, but unless we start taking in more new immigrants that will only be 2 taxpayers:1 retiree by 2040, which would likely not be enough to provide adequate funding for our healthcare system and social safety net. Our current birthrate is well below the fertility replacement rate too, which isn't helping matters either.
I don't disagree with you that a post-scarcity economy would be ideal... I am a Trekkie and so would love to live in a similar future! However, the pragmatist in me says we shouldn't assume that outcome is inevitable or achievable by 2100, and so the uptick in immigration is the safer bet for now.
Canada has the fourth largest volume of renewable internal freshwater resources and the sixth largest area of arable land in the world... but we're only ranked 39th by population. We still have plenty of resources to spare in that department.
Note: I haven't watched the video yet.
For those who don't know much about Canada (like me), it has a population of about 36 million. They have 250,000 immigrants per year.
If Canada wants to have a population od 100 million by 2100, the number of immigrants plus birth rate / mortality rate should account for more than 800,000 per year, starting next year. That seems like an enormous amount. Is that even doable?
If I remember correctly a day later, the video cites 450,000 immigrants per year as the number that would make 100 million by 2100 possible (compared to about 300,000 immigrants per year now). The analysis in the video is skeptical of this idea: the commentator thinks it would be difficult to reach the 450,000 per year for various reasons (one reason he says is the de facto requirement to keep the the ratio of Quebec's population to the rest of Canada the same; just to note, this isn't something I've heard before and I can't find any info on it, and the only similar idea I've come across before is the requirement for minimum representation for certain provinces in parliament regardless of population). Much more optimistic is the 2017 book Maximum Canada: Toward a Country of 100 Million which advocates for the idea. As it says:
(collapsed for length)
A maximum Canada would not entail a Laurier-era large-scale immigration drive or a noticeably increased flow of newcomers at a pace likely to disrupt the social balance. It would mean a slow increase in immigration levels to somewhat more than the approximately 300,000 people we currently accept every year. Since the early 1990s, Canada’s immigration rate has stayed relatively steady at around 0.7 to 0.8 percent (that is, 7 or 8 new immigrants each year for every 1,000 existing Canadians). For a substantial population increase, this rate would need to increase by a couple of tenths of a percentage point, to perhaps 1.2 per cent, for a number of years. It would not entail a year-to-year increase in immigration numbers beyond the modest changes Canadians are used to. For example, Canada’s immigration intake increased several times during the Mulroney years—notably by 50,000 between 1986 and 1987 (from 99,000 back to the 1976 level of 152,000)—and then fell by 40,000 in the Chrétien years, from 216,000 to 174,000 in 1997, and then jumped again by 40,000 in 2000, to 230,000. In 2016, it saw another increase of 40,000, from 260,000 to a target of 300,000.Most scenarios for population growth call for similar gradual changes in immigration intake. One proposal, by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, outlines a plan that would see a gradual rise in immigration numbers, with annual increases between 15,000 and 45,000 immigrants each year (to avoid a sudden strain on our education, transportation and health systems) until 2021. At that point Canada would be taking in 75,000 additional primary immigrants (those admitted through the points system) and an equal number of family members (those who come as relatives of the “points” immigrants), for a total annual immigration intake of 450,000 per year and an annual population growth of 1.2 percent—an immigration level considerably lower than, for example, Switzerland’s (1.9 per cent) and similar to the rates in New Zealand, Ireland and Norway. The plan would focus exclusively on high-skill and postsecondary student immigration to minimize cost and maximize economic benefit (as well as a predicted sharp decrease in refugee numbers, which tend to spike only during crises every few decades). This would not produce a very noticeable increase in the number of newcomers in Canadian streets and schools; it is less than a third of the proportion of immigration Canada experienced every year in the 1910s. The plan would allow institutions and infrastructure to expand in an organic and managed way, so that cities could plan for growth and phase in transportation, housing and schools as the newcomers’ economic participation provided the new tax revenues to pay for them.
The Advisory Council’s immigration numbers are on the high side: they assume no change in birth rates. If investments in family policy and childcare deliver a fertility-rate increase, then the immigration numbers could be considerably lower. The effect will be the same either way: more Canadians, and a considerably younger population. This, as Chapter 6 showed, would make the mid-century demographic crunch much more manageable. The price of managing an aging generation would not eat up a third of national and provincial budgets, thereby leaving resources for climate policy, infrastructure and younger generations.
I am all for this, but unfortunately I don't think that either the Federal or Provincial governments will be able to cough up the necessary infrastructure to make this feasible.
I might give this desert and rest at some point and move to Canada. My US state is very blue, but shitlord companies like nestle get to suck up resources from our natural springs if they please. Some people are only alive because it's illegal to ____.