Attached: 1 image
The #population of #Canada is expected to hit 40 million within the next day or two, according to #StatCan's modelling:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2018005-eng.htm #Cdnpoli
Is it just me, or should the government figure out a way to determine a good population goal that leads to optimum quality of life and aim to keep the population stable at whatever that number is?
Infinite growth won’t work.
Our birth rates are below replacement, so this still leaves a lot of room for immigration.
You really should check your results before sending off google searches. The only english link in that entire set of results is for some random think tank suggesting it. I even checked the french results and found that the government specifically pushed back against such a suggestion as recently as a few months ago. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1978949/demographie-immigration-cibles-canada
Trudeau has done a lot of stupid shit, but this doesn’t appear to be one of those things.
don’t know where they will live however, in the streets?
Canada does have the second-largest land area of any country on Earth, second only to Russia. I wouldn’t think that space would be a terrible constraint for Canada.
I think many economists point to the fact that western countries need younger workers to help pay for the growing percentage of the population that will be retired and needing more government services. So population increase at the rate we have may be needed even with some of the negatives it brings.
I doubt we need that many to balance that particular problem out quite honestly, I’m pretty sure the current rate is just to suppress labour cost inflation.
We aren’t immigrating a lot of children, so that report isn’t particularly helpful at determining the actual balance. We also probably shouldn’t set our entire economy up to handle the wave of baby boomers, otherwise we’ll be simply creating another boom cycle in 40 years.
Unfortunately we’ve kind of seen what people think when the government wants to step in more directly to help make people’s lives better, this kind of thing would just make people cry about ‘freedoms.’
I think the “freedom” crowd would be on board. With housing costs being the way they are and them being racists, cutting back on immigration until we have more affordable housing wouldn’t be a hard sell.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Is it just me, or should the government figure out a way to determine a good population goal that leads to optimum quality of life and aim to keep the population stable at whatever that number is?
Infinite growth won’t work.
Our birth rates are below replacement, so this still leaves a lot of room for immigration.
Trudeau is aiming at 100 million people, I don’t know where they will live however, in the streets?
Source?
a lot of them https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trudeau+100+millions
You really should check your results before sending off google searches. The only english link in that entire set of results is for some random think tank suggesting it. I even checked the french results and found that the government specifically pushed back against such a suggestion as recently as a few months ago. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1978949/demographie-immigration-cibles-canada
Trudeau has done a lot of stupid shit, but this doesn’t appear to be one of those things.
well, 500’000 per year is what federal wants https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1929447/immigration-canada-nouveaux-seuils
Anyway, it’s too much for our housing, whoever decides it or if it is 500k or 1m per year
Canada does have the second-largest land area of any country on Earth, second only to Russia. I wouldn’t think that space would be a terrible constraint for Canada.
Canada has more area in total, but China and the USA have more land area specifically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
I think many economists point to the fact that western countries need younger workers to help pay for the growing percentage of the population that will be retired and needing more government services. So population increase at the rate we have may be needed even with some of the negatives it brings.
I doubt we need that many to balance that particular problem out quite honestly, I’m pretty sure the current rate is just to suppress labour cost inflation.
I disagree. We are already seeing the results of aging population. here is a report from stats Canada about it: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220427/dq220427a-eng.htm
We aren’t immigrating a lot of children, so that report isn’t particularly helpful at determining the actual balance. We also probably shouldn’t set our entire economy up to handle the wave of baby boomers, otherwise we’ll be simply creating another boom cycle in 40 years.
deleted by creator
Unfortunately we’ve kind of seen what people think when the government wants to step in more directly to help make people’s lives better, this kind of thing would just make people cry about ‘freedoms.’
I think the “freedom” crowd would be on board. With housing costs being the way they are and them being racists, cutting back on immigration until we have more affordable housing wouldn’t be a hard sell.